Re: Add Postgres module info
| От | Yurii Rashkovskii |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Add Postgres module info |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAG=VW16Zr028+S7+sXVz+MUzyYyA5iKrokfZc8xY6oOpdYhUdA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Add Postgres module info (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Add Postgres module info
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:02 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/13/24 10:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 12/12/24 21:02, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote:
>>> 2. Any reasons to dictate MAJ.MIN format? With semantic versioning
>>> abound, it's rather common to use MAJ.MIN.PATCH.
>
>> Okay, thanks; that's a good catch. I wonder how to follow these rules
>> with a static fixed-sized structure. I would like to read about any
>> suggestions and implementation examples.
>
> There's nothing stopping a field of the magic block from being
> a "const char *" pointer to a string literal.
Ok, See v.2 in attachment.
I've reviewed the patch, and it is great that you support more flexible versioning now. I am just wondering a bit about the case where `minfo->name` can be `NULL` but `minfo->version` isn't, or where both are `NULL` – should we skip any of these?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: