Re: [JDBC] Setting PG-version without recompiling

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Setting PG-version without recompiling
Date: 2014-07-14 03:47:10
Message-ID: 53C352BE.6040807@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc

On 07/03/2014 10:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> writes:
>> Hi. Â I'm up for testing 9.4 but my JDBC-driver fails to connect due to PG's
>> minor-version string: "4beta1". Is it possible to set this somewhere without
>> recompiling PG?
>
> No, and even if you could, that would be the wrong approach. The right
> approach is to fix the JDBC driver to not complain about such version
> strings. I'm a bit surprised they haven't done so long since, considering
> how long PG beta versions have been tagged like that. For that matter,
> they really ought not complain about strings like "9.5devel" or
> "9.5alpha2" either.

Yeah, that's horrible. We should be using server_version_num .

It should be a quick enough fix, I'll take a look.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2014-07-14 04:29:09 Re: tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2014-07-13 20:43:06 Re: bad estimation together with large work_mem generates terrible slow hash joins

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Devrim Gündüz 2014-07-14 09:15:01 Re: PostgreSQL JDBC new jar available
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2014-07-10 23:17:43 Re: PostgreSQL JDBC new jar available