On 6/14/16 3:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> D) Add a version function to 10.0 that returns both parts separately.
>> >
>> > My vote is D. Parsing version() output is a wart, but coming out with a
>> > split output version of that in 9.6 that still has to support 3 numbers
>> > would also be a wart. We've lived with the parsing wart this long, so lets
>> > just add an explicit output version to 10.0.
>> >
>> > Any ideas on naming for such a function? version_detail()? I suppose while
>> > we're at this we might as well provide the compile details as well.
> This seems kind of silly, because anybody who is writing code that
> might have to run against an existing version of the database won't be
> able to use it. The one thing that absolutely has to be cross-version
> is the method of determining which version you're running against.
We're talking about a function that doesn't currently exist anyway. So
no matter what, you won't be able to use it if you're interested in
<10.0 (or <9.6 if we went with one of the other proposals).
Unless folks were thinking this is something that would be backpatched?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461