Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly
Date
Msg-id 5800.1516648481@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-bugs
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Kieran McCusker wrote:
>> But shouldn't it be
>> #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100

> You're not being dense -- the way we're using it is indeed a bit odd.
> But it was a concious decision to leave it like this: the reason is that
> we've been using these two digits to indicate patch level rather than
> major for so long, that is seems less likely to break version parsing
> tools if we continue to do that.  So the patch level for release 10 is
> going to use the last two digits only, with the two middle digits
> remaining constant 00 forever.

Right.  If we did it the other way, much code would think that 10.1
is a new major version, not a new minor version.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly
Next
From: fletchowns
Date:
Subject: RE: BUG #15018: yum install postgis24_96 failure