Thread: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly
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.
Many Thanks
Kieran McCusker
HiI 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 100001But shouldn't it be#define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100or 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.
Kieran McCusker 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. You're not being dense -- the way we're using it is indeed a bit odd. But it was a concious decision to leave it like this: the reason is that we've been using these two digits to indicate patch level rather than major for so long, that is seems less likely to break version parsing tools if we continue to do that. So the patch level for release 10 is going to use the last two digits only, with the two middle digits remaining constant 00 forever. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Kieran McCusker wrote:
>> But shouldn't it be
>> #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100
> You're not being dense -- the way we're using it is indeed a bit odd.
> But it was a concious decision to leave it like this: the reason is that
> we've been using these two digits to indicate patch level rather than
> major for so long, that is seems less likely to break version parsing
> tools if we continue to do that. So the patch level for release 10 is
> going to use the last two digits only, with the two middle digits
> remaining constant 00 forever.
Right. If we did it the other way, much code would think that 10.1
is a new major version, not a new minor version.
regards, tom lane