Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie oct 14 09:36:47 -0300 2011:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > >> Oh, true, we have that, though it's not very usable because you have to
> > >> rename the file from .psqlrc-9.0.3 to .psqlrc-9.0.4 when you upgrade,
> > >> which is kinda silly.
> > >
> > > True. We don't add configuration changes in minor versions so having
> > > minor-version granularity makes no sense.
> > >
> > > The attached patch changes this to use the _major_ version number for
> > > psql rc files. Does this have to be backward-compatible? Should I
> > > check for minor and major matches? That is going to be confusing to
> > > document.
> >
> > Checking for a minor match and then a major match seems sensible.
>
> And backwards compatible too! +1 to that. An idea that you can
> describe in six words doesn't seem all that confusing.
Oops, I see a problem. Right now, our first major release has no zero,
e.g. 9.2, while our minors have a third digit, 9.2.5. The problem is
that with this patch it is confusing to have a psql config file that
matches 9.2.0, but not 9.2.5, because you can't write 9.2.0. A file
called .psql-9.2 matches 9.2.0, but also matches 9.2.X if there is no
matching minor release file. The bottom line is that with this patch,
.psql-9.2 is both a minor and possibly minor matcher. I can't blame the
patch, but rather our version numbering system.
Prior to the patch 9.2 always meant just 9.2.0. This patch adds an
additional confusion.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +