Re: New version numbering practices

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New version numbering practices
Date: 2016-08-04 04:45:27
Message-ID: 7716.1470285927@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 4 August 2016 at 02:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So it seems like fixing libpq's parsing of server_version_num is
>> something we definitely want to fix ASAP in all back branches.

> Well, this seems like a good time to make server_version_num GUC_REPORT as
> well...

To what end? Existing versions of libpq wouldn't know about it, and new
versions of libpq couldn't rely on it to get reported by older servers,
so it'd still be the path of least resistance to examine server_version.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-08-04 04:56:48 Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2016-08-04 04:40:58 Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication.