Re: New version numbering practices

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Sorry, but I don't buy that. I think sending both server_version and
>>> server_version_num would be silly, and we're certainly not going to stop
>>> sending server_version.
>
>> What is wrong with sending machine-readable value?
>
> [ shrug... ] What do you claim is not machine-readable about
> server_version?

Surely you can't have missed the connection between the issue at hand
and what Craig is talking about. If libpq were using the
machine-readable version rather than PARSING A STRING, switching to a
two-part numbering scheme wouldn't force a compatibility break. Every
driver that his independently implemented the PostgreSQL wire protocol
is going to have to be updated for this, if they're doing something
similar to libpq, and you're still asking why sending
server_version_num is potentially beneficial?

I think it's entirely reasonable to ask whether it's worth burdening
connection startup with a few extra bytes of essentially duplicative
information is a good idea on performance grounds, and I don't know
the answer to that question. But pretending like it wouldn't help
anything when it would fix *the exact problem we are currently talking
about* is just sticking your head in the sand.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company