| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions |
| Date: | 2021-04-23 12:10:01 |
| Message-ID: | 84a69dba-445c-ea49-afef-4ac9552b0924@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/23/21 12:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 08:43:10PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Interesting point. Maybe we need to do something like devel = -4, alpha
>> = -3, beta = -2, rc = -1. Or maybe that's overkill.
> And after that it would come to how many betas, alphas or RCs you
> have, but you can never be sure of how many of each you may finish
> with. I think that you have the right answer with just marking all
> of them with -1 for the minor number, keeping the code a maximum
> simple.
Yeah, I think it's ok for comparison purposes just to lump them all
together. Here's a patch that does that and some consequent cleanup.
Note we now cache the string rather than trying to reconstruct it.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| PostgresVersion-devel-marker.patch | text/x-patch | 2.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2021-04-23 12:38:01 | Re: Table refer leak in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-04-23 11:03:56 | Re: decoupling table and index vacuum |