Re: System views for versions reporting

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/16/24 08:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That way, you can get this information without having to start a server
>> instance. (Maybe you can't start a server instance because it just
>> crashed because of some library version issue ...)

> While it is also useful to be able to get the info without being able to
> start the server, I think that would be an addition not a replacement.
> When you have a fleet with no direct access to run shell commands, being
> able to get this info via SQL is valuable.

Yeah. In addition, I envisioned that this might include information
that's only readily available at runtime. Don't have a concrete
example at hand (-ENOCAFFEINE) but I think that --version is
necessarily going to be exceedingly constrained in what it can do.

Another problem is that, just like with version(), there is already
code making assumptions about what --version will output. Most of
that is under our control, but perhaps not all. The main value
of a new system view, IMV, is that it's a completely green field
for us to define the contents of.

regards, tom lane