Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions
Date
Msg-id a972a924-d850-278e-f415-62ab1c9bbaaa@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/21/21 1:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:11:59PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Here's the patch for that.
> Thanks.
>
>> +    # Accept standard formats, in case caller has handed us the output of a
>> +    # postgres command line tool
>> +    $arg = $1
>> +        if ($arg =~ m/\(?PostgreSQL\)? (\d+(?:\.\d+)*(?:devel)?)/);
> Interesting.  This would work even if using --with-extra-version,
> which is a good thing.
>
>> +# render the version number in the standard "joined by dots" notation if
>> +# interpolated into a string
>> +sub _stringify
>> +{
>> +   my $self = shift;
>> +   return join('.',  @$self);
>> +}
> This comes out a bit strangely when using a devel build as this
> appends -1 as sub-version number, becoming say 14.-1.  It may be
> clearer to add back "devel" in this case?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to add some perldoc to PostgresVersion.pm?




Here's a patch with these things attended to.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: ML-based indexing ("The Case for Learned Index Structures", a paper from Google)
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Stale description for pg_basebackup