Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version
Date
Msg-id 18487.945278504@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to initdb / pg_version  ("Patrick Welche" <prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] initdb / pg_version
List pgsql-hackers
"Patrick Welche" <prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk> writes:
> I just spent some time trying to work out why PG_VERSION contained 6.6
> rather than 7.0 in my freshly initdb'd directory. End result: I don't
> understand why after doing a make in src/bin/pg_version, doing a make
> install recompiles pg_version even though it was just made.

You know, I'd always assumed that it was done that way deliberately
to put an up-to-date build date into pg_version ... but on looking
at the code, pg_version doesn't know anything about its build date.
It just cares about the PG_VERSION string.

> Any thoughts to fix the build process?

The dependency on a phony submake target is the problem;
need to put in real dependencies for version.o instead.
Might be easier if version.c were removed from .../utils
and put in bin/pg_version.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: SELECT ... AS ... names in WHERE/GROUP BY/HAVING
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] AND &&