Re: New version numbering practices

On 4 August 2016 at 12:45, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 4 August 2016 at 02:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> So it seems like fixing libpq's parsing of server_version_num is
> >> something we definitely want to fix ASAP in all back branches.
>
> > Well, this seems like a good time to make server_version_num GUC_REPORT
> as
> > well...
>
> To what end? Existing versions of libpq wouldn't know about it, and new
> versions of libpq couldn't rely on it to get reported by older servers,
> so it'd still be the path of least resistance to examine server_version.
>

Because it's really silly that we don't, and since we're making a change
that will affect clients anyway (the argument against doing it before),
lets do it.

Otherwise why bother ever adding anything, since it'll take time for
clients to use it?

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services