On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 10:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > So, apparently pg_available_extension_versions already had those
> > fields so all the required infrastructure was already there. I just
> > added the exact same fields to pg_available_extensions, see attached
> > patch.
>
> The reason that pg_available_extensions has only the fields it has
> is that these other values are potentially extension-version-dependent.
> I do not think we can accept this patch.
Oh, I didn't know there could be multiple control files per extension,
and I missed the "aux" reference. So indeed this patch is
unacceptable.