Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem - Mailing list pgsql-interfaces

From Ian Barwick
Subject Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Date
Msg-id 200212100034.31936.barwick@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-interfaces
On Monday 09 December 2002 17:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ian Barwick <barwick@gmx.net> writes:
> > To avoid voodoo with PostgreSQL version numbers
> > a check is made whether pg_relcheck exists and
> > the appropriate query (either 7.3 or pre 7.3)
> > executed.
>
> I would think that looking at version number (select version())
> would be a much cleaner approach.  Or do you think that direct
> examination of pg_class is a version-independent operation?

No, but I was hoping it will remain stable for long enough
for what is basically a temporary work around until a revised version of
DBD::Pg can be produced. It doesn't make any more assumptions
about pg_class than are made elsewhere in the current Pg.pm.

> This inquiry into pg_relcheck's existence is already arguably wrong
> in 7.3 (since it's not taking account of which schema pg_relcheck
> might be found in) and it can only go downhill in future versions.

Doh. Knew I had to be missing something obvious. (Of course,
anyone using current DBD::Pg with 7.3 as is will have to take
extra care with system tables and schema namespaces anyway.)

So out with the candle wax and pins ;-). Am I right
in thinking that the string returned by SELECT version()
starts with the word "PostgreSQL" followed by: a space;  a single digit indicating the major version number; a full
stop/ decimal point; a single digit indicating the minor version number; 
and either "interim release" number (e.g. ".1" in the case of 7.3.1), or
"devel", "rc1" etc. ?
And that this has been true since 6.x and will continue for the forseeable
future (i.e. far far longer than the intended lifespan of attached patch)?


Ian Barwick
barwick@gmx.net

Attached: revised patch







pgsql-interfaces by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem