From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Variable substitution in psql backtick expansion |
Date: | 2017-08-26 16:40:05 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1708261740590.17521@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom,
>> I understand that you would prefer VERSION_NAME to show something like
>> "11devel, server 9.6.4"
> No, that's not what I said. I'm just complaining that as the patch stands
> it will set SERVER_NAME to "11.0", where I think it should say "11devel"
> (as of today).
Ok.
> [...]
> VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..."
> CLIENT_VERSION_NAME "11devel"
> CLIENT_VERSION_NUM 110000
This kind of inconsistencies is hard for human memory:-(
> or just leaving "CLIENT" implicit for all of these variables:
>
> VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..."
> VERSION_NAME "11devel"
> VERSION_NUM 110000
That is already what the patch does, because of the VERSION precedent.
> Robert seems to prefer the last of those, and that'd be fine with me.
> (Note that CLIENT is ambiguous anyway: does it mean psql itself, or
> libpq?)
Hmmm. Indeed.
>> SERVER_VERSION_NAME "9.6.4"
>> SERVER_VERSION_NUM 090604
>
> I'm on board with this, except I don't think we should have any leading
> zero in the numeric form. There are contexts where somebody might think
> that means octal.
Indeed. The implementation already does this, I just typed it without
checking.
So basically the only thing needed from Robert & you seems to change
"11.0" to "11devel", which is fine with me.
The attached v5 does that.
--
Fabien.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
psql-version-num-5.patch | text/x-diff | 3.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2017-08-26 16:44:29 | Re: Build failure on thrips |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-08-26 16:18:02 | Re: Build failure on thrips |