From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
Date: | 2005-11-12 17:03:00 |
Message-ID: | 28214.1131814980@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:18:51AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How so? All we care about is being able to (1) compare for equality,
>> and (2) print out something useful in error messages. I claim that
>> PG_VERSION does #1 equally well and #2 better.
> I was thinking of compile time. The compiler can compare
> CATALOG_VERSION in #if statements, but it can't compare strings.
We aren't asking the compiler to compare anything, though. I'm
imagining just that the PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 macro will insert the value
into the Pg_finfo_record struct, and the comparison will happen at run
time in dfmgr.c.
> Another way that doesn't require code changes would be to make a dummy symbol
> containing the version and referring to it in pg_finfo. Then you'd get
> error messages like: Couldn't find symbol 'PG_version_verify_8_1'. i.e.
> let the dynamic linker do the work.
That would be attractive if we could get it to happen without the
assumption that the library uses PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 ... but if it still
needs that assumption, it doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
It's not always easy for people to see dynamic-linker error messages,
so I'd rather the message were issued under our control when possible.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-12 17:24:34 | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-11-12 16:49:27 | Re: SIGSEGV taken on 8.1 during dump/reload |