Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwb-xCay+JcN+DmLUu17wECsrCHK86t9FEQhkxpC3Qi+=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly  (Kieran McCusker <kieran.mccusker@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Kieran McCusker <kieran.mccusker@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi

I was looking at an issue with ogr_fdw where it is trying to get the PG_VERSION_NUM when I noticed that in Postgresql 10.1 this is declared as:

#define PG_VERSION_NUM 100001

But shouldn't it be

#define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100

or am I being dense, in which case sorry to have bothered you.


​Beginning with v10 the middle two digits with ALWAYS be zero - only the first two (major release) and last two (patch version) are changed.  10.1 means v10 with the first patch release, unless 9.6 which is a major version ​in its own right and, with patch version, reads 9.6.3

David J.

pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Kieran McCusker
Date:
Subject: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly