Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version
Date: 2016-08-29 03:46:07
Message-ID: 20160829034607.s5an7c2xz5apb7o7@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-08-29 11:41:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 29 August 2016 at 02:52, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "Regina Obe" <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us> writes:
> >> The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from pg_config is
> >> breaking in the 10 cycle
> >
> > TBH, I wonder why you are doing that in the first place; it does not
> > seem like the most reliable source of version information. If you
> > need to do compile-time tests, PG_CATALOG_VERSION is considered the
> > best thing to look at, or VERSION_NUM in Makefiles.
>
> This is my cue to pop up and say that if you're looking at the startup
> message you have to use the version string, despite it not being the
> most reliable source of information, because we don't send
> server_version_num ;)
>
> Patch attached. Yes, I know PostGIS doesn't use it, but it makes no
> sense to tell people not to parse the server version out in some
> situations then force them to in others.

If they're using pg_config atm, that seems unlikely to be related. That
sounds more like a build time issue - there won't be a running server.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kuntal Ghosh 2016-08-29 05:13:09 Re: WAL consistency check facility
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-08-29 03:45:14 Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)