Thread: Version number in psql banner
A release or two ago we added the version number to the psql welcome banner. I noticed that quite a few people interpret that as the server version. Somehow, the explicit display of the version numbers leads them to make inferences that they would otherwise not bother about. Has anyone else experienced that? I suppose there was a reason we added the version number there, but I can't recall it. Could we make that more clear? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 05:30:34PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > A release or two ago we added the version number to the psql welcome banner. > I noticed that quite a few people interpret that as the server version. > Somehow, the explicit display of the version numbers leads them to make > inferences that they would otherwise not bother about. Has anyone else > experienced that? I suppose there was a reason we added the version number > there, but I can't recall it. Could we make that more clear? I think the rationale for not adding the server version is that you could tell people to do "select version()", so it would be unneeded verbosity, but certainly a lot of people doesn't even know they can do that. I think by far the easiest and clearest is to show both psql's version and the server version. Not the whole "version()" string, as that is too verbose -- just the version number. -- Alvaro Herrera -- Valdivia, Chile Architect, www.EnterpriseDB.com "Cuando miro a alguien, m�s me atrae c�mo cambia que qui�n es" (J. Binoche)
Peter, > A release or two ago we added the version number to the psql welcome > banner. I noticed that quite a few people interpret that as the server > version. Somehow, the explicit display of the version numbers leads them to > make inferences that they would otherwise not bother about. Has anyone > else experienced that? I suppose there was a reason we added the version > number there, but I can't recall it. Could we make that more clear? Well, Bruce just drafted a patch to warn when the PSQL version and the server version don't match up, because of PSQL incompatibilities. However, that won't help for minor versions. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thursday 01 September 2005 08:30, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > A release or two ago we added the version number to the psql welcome > banner. I noticed that quite a few people interpret that as the server > version. Somehow, the explicit display of the version numbers leads them to > make inferences that they would otherwise not bother about. Has anyone > else experienced that? I suppose there was a reason we added the version > number there, but I can't recall it. Could we make that more clear? Yes I've seen the same frustration from users, I think the banner should say something along the lines of "psql client version foo connected to server bar version sfoo" -- Darcy Buskermolen Wavefire Technologies Corp. http://www.wavefire.com ph: 250.717.0200 fx: 250.763.1759
Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> writes:
> Yes I've seen the same frustration from users, I think the banner should say
> something along the lines of "psql client version foo connected to server bar
> version sfoo"
That seems overly verbose, particularly in the normal case where the
versions are indeed the same. I could live with seeing a display like
that when the versions are different.
The other question is what counts as "different" --- do we want to
complain like this if the minor versions are different?
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> Yes I've seen the same frustration from users, I think the banner should say
> something along the lines of "psql client version foo connected to server bar
> version sfoo"
I second this, I think that something like "psl client version
8.03 connected to server db01 running PostgreSQL version 8.1" would be
real swell.
Cheers,
Aly.
--
Aly S.P Dharshi
aly.dharshi@telus.net
"A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the
subject"
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> writes: > > Yes I've seen the same frustration from users, I think the banner should say > > something along the lines of "psql client version foo connected to server bar > > version sfoo" > > That seems overly verbose, particularly in the normal case where the > versions are indeed the same. I could live with seeing a display like > that when the versions are different. Thats the way Oracle sql*plus has worked for years, so its fairly acceptable to a great many people without too many questions. > The other question is what counts as "different" --- do we want to > complain like this if the minor versions are different? Which is much harder to define and could itself have a bug in it, so I prefer the verbose message.... its much better to know for certain every time. Best Regards, Simon Riggs
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:18:25PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 14:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> writes: > > > Yes I've seen the same frustration from users, I think the banner should say > > > something along the lines of "psql client version foo connected to server bar > > > version sfoo" > > > > That seems overly verbose, particularly in the normal case where the > > versions are indeed the same. I could live with seeing a display like > > that when the versions are different. > > Thats the way Oracle sql*plus has worked for years, so its fairly > acceptable to a great many people without too many questions. > > > The other question is what counts as "different" --- do we want to > > complain like this if the minor versions are different? > > Which is much harder to define and could itself have a bug in it, so I > prefer the verbose message.... its much better to know for certain every > time. I was going to mention that we should report server version info any time we connect to a different server, though I guess \connect only allows you to connect to a different database on the same server. As a side note, there's a typo in \?: \c[onnect] [DBNAME|- [USER]] Note the | where there should be a ]. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com 512-569-9461
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > As a side note, there's a typo in \?: > > \c[onnect] [DBNAME|- [USER]] > > Note the | where there should be a ]. Eh? Looks right to me; the | indicates an alternate, i.e., that you can use either DBNAME or -. I often use - to connect to the same database as a different user. test=> \c - postgres You are now connected as new user "postgres". test=# -- Michael Fuhr
Am Donnerstag, den 01.09.2005, 23:34 -0500 schrieb Jim C. Nasby: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:18:25PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > As a side note, there's a typo in \?: > > \c[onnect] [DBNAME|- [USER]] > > Note the | where there should be a ]. No ;) The | stands for the alternative. The whole block is optional, where you can either type dbname or a hypen for the database name - to be able to just switch the user.