Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David G. Johnston
Тема Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num
Дата
Msg-id CAKFQuwZxV7kSFktp4EED+AU930WibJoasW=_GWcyCLzHP-785A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] pg_config --version-num  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Hm, but with this you're trading that problem for "is the right version
of pg_config in my PATH?".

That is probably a solved problem for those who are parsing the output of --version today.
​

This idea might well be useful for external packages which are always
built/tested against installed versions of Postgres.  But it seems like
we need to think harder about what to do for our own usages, and that
may lead to a different solution altogether.

​While we may not want to go to the extreme that is Perl, there being more than one way to do things does have merit.  Given that we run 5 concurrent releases of our software and put out new ones annually the version is a very important piece of information.  There being 5 different ways to get at that data is not inherently bad since each way likely is most useful to different subsets of our users.  To allow people to scratch their own itch, here specifically, seems like an easy win in making the project visibly responsive to the community.

David J.
​

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Stephen Frost
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [JDBC] [HACKERS] Channel binding support for SCRAM-SHA-256
Следующее
От: Beena Emerson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Adding support for Default partition in partitioning