Hi, Andrei! On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 7:02 AM Andrei Lepikhov <lepi...@gmail.com> wrote: >ly > 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.
Generally, the patch looks good to me. I have couple of questions. 1) Is it intended to switch all in-core libraries to use PG_MODULE_MAGIC_EXT()? 2) Once we have module version information, it looks natural to specify the required version for dependant objects, e.g. SQL-funcions implemented in shared libraries. For instance, CREATE FUNCTION ... AS 'MODULE_PATHNAME' LANGUAGE C module_version >= '1.0'; For this, and probably other purposes, it's desirable for version to be something comparable at SQL level. Should we add some builtin analogue of pg_text_semver? ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
