Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version
Date
Msg-id 20160829034607.s5an7c2xz5apb7o7@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2016-08-29 11:41:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 29 August 2016 at 02:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > "Regina Obe" <lr@pcorp.us> writes:
> >> The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from pg_config is
> >> breaking in the 10 cycle
> >
> > TBH, I wonder why you are doing that in the first place; it does not
> > seem like the most reliable source of version information.  If you
> > need to do compile-time tests, PG_CATALOG_VERSION is considered the
> > best thing to look at, or VERSION_NUM in Makefiles.
> 
> This is my cue to pop up and say that if you're looking at the startup
> message you have to use the version string, despite it not being the
> most reliable source of information, because we don't send
> server_version_num  ;)
> 
> Patch attached. Yes, I know PostGIS doesn't use it, but it makes no
> sense to tell people not to parse the server version out in some
> situations then force them to in others.

If they're using pg_config atm, that seems unlikely to be related. That
sounds more like a build time issue - there won't be a running server.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog