From: "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us>
To: "'Robert Haas'" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"'Tom Lane'" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "'Sandro Santilli'" <strk@kbt.io>,
	"'Regina Obe'" <r@pcorp.us>,
	<pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: <YgakFklJyM5pNdt+@c19> <20221117095734.igldlk6kngr6ogim@c19> <166914379479.1121.7549798686571352890.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> <55512.1673304709@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20230110205259.htcuhg3t7shd367d@c19> <387183.1673394631@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CA+TgmobDy0sasmzOFkCcKXC3XeQZzRNwbaQRJ752tF1i11BRKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobDy0sasmzOFkCcKXC3XeQZzRNwbaQRJ752tF1i11BRKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2023 14:25:09 -0500
Message-ID: <000c01d9512a$88650b60$992f2220$@pcorp.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQGYmaaUCwtlrmE55CHyCSUXu9VHkgKopfE4AVtxnv8DArAuyQGehsdEA0I4l/UBweK/c68D1EzQ
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/000c01d9512a%2488650b60%24992f2220%24%40pcorp.us>
Precedence: bulk

> The thing that confuses me here is why the PostGIS folks are ending up =
with
> so many files.=20
> We certainly don't have that problem with the extension that
> are being maintained in contrib, and I guess there is some difference =
in
> versioning practice that is making it an issue for them but not for =
us. I wish I
> understood what was going on there.

The contrib files are minor versioned.  PostGIS is micro versioned.

So we have for example postgis--3.3.0--3.3.1.sql
Also we have 5 extensions we ship all micro versions, so multiply that =
issue by 5

postgis
postgis_raster
postgis_topology
postgis_tiger_geocoder
postgis_sfcgal

The other wrinkle we have that I don't think postgresql's contrib have =
is that we support=20
Each version across multiple PostgreSQL versions.
So for example our 3.3 series supports PostgreSQL 12-15 (with plans to =
also support 16).