Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: prlw1(at)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version
Date: 1999-12-15 17:21:44
Message-ID: 18487.945278504@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Patrick Welche" <prlw1(at)newn(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk> writes:
> I just spent some time trying to work out why PG_VERSION contained 6.6
> rather than 7.0 in my freshly initdb'd directory. End result: I don't
> understand why after doing a make in src/bin/pg_version, doing a make
> install recompiles pg_version even though it was just made.

You know, I'd always assumed that it was done that way deliberately
to put an up-to-date build date into pg_version ... but on looking
at the code, pg_version doesn't know anything about its build date.
It just cares about the PG_VERSION string.

> Any thoughts to fix the build process?

The dependency on a phony submake target is the problem;
need to put in real dependencies for version.o instead.
Might be easier if version.c were removed from .../utils
and put in bin/pg_version.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-12-15 17:22:51 Re: [HACKERS] AND &&
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-12-15 17:05:41 SELECT ... AS ... names in WHERE/GROUP BY/HAVING