On tis, 2011-02-15 at 15:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I can't claim close familiarity with Debian's conventions in this
> matter, but I do know about RPM's, and I'm uneager to duplicate that
> silliness. Magic conversion of dots to underscores (sometimes),
> complete inability to determine which pa
2011/2/16 Alex Hunsaker :
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 14:12, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM, marcin mank wrote:
>>> how about : we use a single dash as the separator, and if the
>>> extension author insists on having a dash in the name, as a punishment
>>> he must duplicate t
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 14:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM, marcin mank wrote:
>> how about : we use a single dash as the separator, and if the
>> extension author insists on having a dash in the name, as a punishment
>> he must duplicate the dash, i.e.:
>> uuid--ossp-1.0
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:26 PM, marcin mank wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 12:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I guess the real question is what's Peter's concrete objection to the
>>> double-dash method?
>>
>> It just looks a bit silly an
On Feb 15, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Aside from the double-dash method, we kicked around using colons and
> pluses as separators (and then forbidding just those characters in
> extension and version names). Any of those would be workable, but it's
> not clear to me that any of them hav
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 12:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I guess the real question is what's Peter's concrete objection to the
>> double-dash method?
> It just looks a bit silly and error prone. And other packaging systems
> have been doing without it for decades.
I can
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 12:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I guess the real question is what's Peter's concrete objection to the
>> double-dash method?
>
> It just looks a bit silly and error prone. And other packaging systems
> have been doin
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 15:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Umm ... we are not requiring version names to be numbers.
> That's certainly interesting. Why?
There isn't any packaging system anywhere on the planet that requires
them to be purely numeric. By the time you get
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 12:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I guess the real question is what's Peter's concrete objection to the
> double-dash method?
It just looks a bit silly and error prone. And other packaging systems
have been doing without it for decades.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 15:08 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Umm ... we are not requiring version names to be numbers.
That's certainly interesting. Why?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsq
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Are we deparsing the names of the SQL files to infer the set of
>> version numbers we have to worry about? It seems to me that if
>> there's a list of known version numbers somewhere, we can use dash as
>> the separator wi
On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the truth is that the extension name, at least, is known from the
>> control file.
>
> Yeah, I think it's true in the current code base that we always know the
> extension name we are interested in. However, that's no protection if
>
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Are we deparsing the names of the SQL files to infer the set of
>>> version numbers we have to worry about? It seems to me that if
>>> there's a list of known version numbers somewhere, we can use dash as
>>> the separa
On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Are we deparsing the names of the SQL files to infer the set of
>> version numbers we have to worry about? It seems to me that if
>> there's a list of known version numbers somewhere, we can use dash as
>> the separator without any special restricto
Robert Haas writes:
> Are we deparsing the names of the SQL files to infer the set of
> version numbers we have to worry about? It seems to me that if
> there's a list of known version numbers somewhere, we can use dash as
> the separator without any special restricton.
The list of known version
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
>> Why isn't one enough?
>
> Because we'd have to forbid dashes in extension name and version
> strings. This was judged to be a less annoying solu
t...@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
Why isn't one enough?
>
>>> Because we'd have to forbid dashes in exte
2011/2/14 Tom Lane :
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric_Villemain?=
> writes:
>> why do we care if there is a dash in the middle of a text where there
>> are no numbers ?
>
> Umm ... we are not requiring version names to be numbers.
good point I was believing we had something like
multi-name-1.2.3-5
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> why do we care if there is a dash in the middle of a text where there
> are no numbers ?
Umm ... we are not requiring version names to be numbers.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postg
2011/2/14 Tom Lane :
> "David E. Wheeler" writes:
>> On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not convinced. There was nothing in that discussion why any
particular character would have to be allowed in a version number.
>
>>> Well, there's already a counterexample in the curren
On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Commas do not seem like an improvement to me at all --- they are widely
> used as list separators.
Fair enough.
> I guess the real question is what's Peter's concrete objection to the
> double-dash method?
Hey, I know, a double-dash between the ext
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'm not convinced. There was nothing in that discussion why any
>>> particular character would have to be allowed in a version number.
>> Well, there's already a counterexample in the current contrib stuff:
>> uuid-oss
On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not convinced. There was nothing in that discussion why any
>> particular character would have to be allowed in a version number.
>
> Well, there's already a counterexample in the current contrib stuff:
> uuid-ossp. We could rename that to uui
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
>> > Why isn't one enough?
>>
>> Because we'd have to forbid dashes in extension name
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On mån, 2011-02-14 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
>>> Why isn't one enough?
>> Because we'd have to forbid dashes in extension name and version
>> strings. This was
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 10:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
> > Why isn't one enough?
>
> Because we'd have to forbid dashes in extension name and version
> strings. This was judged to be a less annoying s
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
> Why isn't one enough?
Because we'd have to forbid dashes in extension name and version
strings. This was judged to be a less annoying solution. See
yesterday's discussion.
Why do the extension load files need two dashes, like xml2--1.0.sql?
Why isn't one enough?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
28 matches
Mail list logo
