On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 12:02 PM Andrei Lepikhov <lepi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/24 10:17, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andrei Lepikhov <lepi...@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?
