Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits
Date
Msg-id 200812311622.mBVGMoL00494@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits  (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > On Wednesday 31 December 2008 04:45:01 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> PostgreSQL 8.4devel on i386-pc-bsdi4.3.1, compiled by GCC 2.95.3, 32-bit
> 
> > Maybe we should separate all that, e.g.,
> 
> > SELECT version();    => 'PostgreSQL 8.4devel'
> > SELECT pg_host_os();    => 'bsdi4.3.1'
> > SELECT pg_host_cpu();    => 'i386' (although this is still faulty, as per my 
> > original argument; needs some thought)
> > SELECT pg_compiler();    => 'GCC 2.95.3'
> > SELECT pg_pointer_size(); => 4 (or 32) (this could also be a SHOW variable)
> 
> Seems like serious overkill.  No one has asked for access to individual
> components of the version string, other than the PG version number
> itself, which we already dealt with.
> 
> I didn't actually see a user request for finding out the pointer width,
> either, but if there is one then Bruce's proposal seems fine.

It is true no one asked for this information except Peter (I assume for
just academic reasons), and I don't think we care from a bug reporting
perspective, so I will just keep the patch around in case we ever want it.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO items for window functions
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits