Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqRfZjNOmJxHmx8UcvYsWf4cKG-N1hEdwGiGm4D9QgswBw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> ... So attached is a patch that adds VERSION_NUM in
>> Makefile.global.
>
> While there was not exactly universal consensus that we need this, the
> patch as given is merely two lines, so it seems awfully cheap to Just
> Do It.  Hence, I've gone ahead and committed it.  If we start getting
> complaints about use-cases this doesn't cover, we can re-discuss whether
> it's worth doing more.

This looks fine to me. Thanks.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: bugfix: incomplete implementation of errhidecontext
Next
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Interesting study "what is C in practice"