Re: Add llvm version into the version string
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add llvm version into the version string |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3203904.1727117118@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add llvm version into the version string (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add llvm version into the version string
Re: Add llvm version into the version string |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 01:15:54PM GMT, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: >> About a new function, I think that the llvm runtime version has to be >> shown in some form by pgsql_version. The idea is to skip an emails >> exchange like "here is the bug report" -> "can you attach the llvm >> version?". I'm not in favor of that, for a couple of reasons: * People already have expectations about what version() returns. Some distro and forks even modify it (see eg --extra-version). I think we risk breaking obscure use-cases if we add stuff onto that. Having version() return something different from the PG_VERSION_STR constant could cause other problems too, perhaps. * Believing that it'll save us questioning a bug submitter seems fairly naive to me. Nobody includes the result of version() unless specifically asked for it. * I'm not in favor of overloading version() with subsystem-related version numbers, because it doesn't scale. Who's to say we're not going to need the version of ICU, or libxml2, to take a couple of obvious examples? When you take that larger view, multiple subsystem-specific version functions seem to me to make more sense. Maybe another idea could be a new system view? => select * from pg_system_version; property | value ---------------------------------------- core version | 18.1 architecture | x86_64-pc-linux-gnu word size | 64 bit compiler | gcc (GCC) 12.5.0 ICU version | 60.3 LLVM version | 18.1.0 ... Adding rows to a view over time seems way less likely to cause problems than messing with a string people probably have crufty parsing code for. >> If it's going to be a new separate function, I guess it won't >> make much difference to ask either to call the new function or the >> llvm-config, right? I do think that if we can get a version number out of the loaded library, that is worth doing. I don't trust the llvm-config that happens to be in somebody's PATH to be the same version that their PG is actually built with. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: