| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Boris Kolpackov <boris(at)codesynthesis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvaro(dot)herrera(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add version macro to libpq-fe.h |
| Date: | 2021-06-17 16:56:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY8PVB39k5d=OZ64Sv7ba0s32TXg9Vp6wLnCuO9cHM2QA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 9:34 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think putting a version number as such in there is a truly
> horrid idea. However, I could get behind adding a boolean flag
> that says specifically whether the pipeline feature exists.
> Then you'd do something like
>
> #ifdef LIBPQ_HAS_PIPELINING
>
> rather than embedding knowledge of exactly which release
> added that.
I realize that this kind of feature-based testing is generally
considered a best practice, but the problem is we're unlikely to do it
consistently. If we put a version number in there, people will be able
to test for whatever they want.
Then again, why would pg_config.h be absent?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-17 17:03:29 | Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-06-17 16:56:42 | Re: Unresolved repliaction hang and stop problem. |