On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:53 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 17:46, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I personally like this less than both (a) adding a new function and
> > (b) redefining the existing function as Jelte proposes. It just seems
> > too clever to me.
>
> Agreed, I'm not really seeing a benefit of returning 4 instead of
> 30004. Both are new numbers that are higher than 3, so on existing
> code they would have the same impact. But any new code would be more
> readable when using version >= 30004 imho.
Yes. And the major * 10000 + minor convention is used in other places
already, for PG versions, so it might already be familiar to some
people. I think if we're going to redefine an existing function, we
might as well just redefine it as you propose -- or perhaps even
redefine it to return major * 10000 + minor always, instead of having
the strange exception for 3.0. I think I'm still on the side of not
redefining it, but if we're going to redefine it, I think we should do
what seems most elegant/logical and just accept that some code may
break.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
