From: | Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | dbi-dev(at)perl(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem |
Date: | 2002-12-09 23:34:31 |
Message-ID: | 200212100034.31936.barwick@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
On Monday 09 December 2002 17:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > To avoid voodoo with PostgreSQL version numbers
> > a check is made whether pg_relcheck exists and
> > the appropriate query (either 7.3 or pre 7.3)
> > executed.
>
> I would think that looking at version number (select version())
> would be a much cleaner approach. Or do you think that direct
> examination of pg_class is a version-independent operation?
No, but I was hoping it will remain stable for long enough
for what is basically a temporary work around until a revised version of
DBD::Pg can be produced. It doesn't make any more assumptions
about pg_class than are made elsewhere in the current Pg.pm.
> This inquiry into pg_relcheck's existence is already arguably wrong
> in 7.3 (since it's not taking account of which schema pg_relcheck
> might be found in) and it can only go downhill in future versions.
Doh. Knew I had to be missing something obvious. (Of course,
anyone using current DBD::Pg with 7.3 as is will have to take
extra care with system tables and schema namespaces anyway.)
So out with the candle wax and pins ;-). Am I right
in thinking that the string returned by SELECT version()
starts with the word "PostgreSQL" followed by:
a space;
a single digit indicating the major version number;
a full stop / decimal point;
a single digit indicating the minor version number;
and either "interim release" number (e.g. ".1" in the case of 7.3.1), or
"devel", "rc1" etc. ?
And that this has been true since 6.x and will continue for the forseeable
future (i.e. far far longer than the intended lifespan of attached patch)?
Ian Barwick
barwick(at)gmx(dot)net
Attached: revised patch
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
Pg.patch | text/x-diff | 801 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2002-12-09 23:39:17 | SIGSEGV |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-09 23:19:57 | Re: DB Tuning Notes for comment... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-09 23:47:30 | Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-09 16:03:52 | Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem |