On Apr 25, 2011, at 5:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think it's a bit awkward that we have to do it this way, though.
> The installed version of the extension at the SQL level won't match
> what the user thinks they've installed. Granted, it'll be in the
> ballpark (1.0 vs 1.0.3, for example) but that's not quite the same
> thing. I also note that we've moved PDQ from thinking that versions
> are opaque strings to having pretty specific ideas about how they are
> going to have to be assigned and managed to avoid maintainer insanity.
> That suggests to me that at a minimum we need some more documentation
> here.
These are really great points. I knew I wasn't thrilled about this suggest, but wasn't sure why. Frankly, I think it
willbe really confusing to users who think they have FooBar 1.2.2 installed but see only 1.2 in the database. I don't
thinkI would do that, personally. I'm much more inclined to have the same extension version everywhere I can.
If the core wants to build some infrastructure around the meaning of versions, then it will make sense (especially if
there'sa way to see *both* versions). But if not, I frankly don't see the point.
Best,
David