On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> But if we add this feature and somebody wants to use it for >> server_version_num, it's really pretty simple. In the startup packet, >> you say _pq_.report=server_version_num. Then, you call >> PQparameterStatus(conn, "server_version_num"). If you don't get a >> value, you try calling PQparameterStatus(conn, "server_version") and >> extracting the second word. If that still doesn't work then you give >> up. That doesn't seem either useless or difficult to implement >> correctly from here. > > Yeah, but what's the point? If yuou have to maintain the server_version > parsing code anyway, you're not saving any complexity with this. You're > just creating a code backwater that you probably won't test adequately.
Well, you obviously don't buy the idea that parsing server_version_num might be more reliable than parsing server_version. If you did buy that idea, you might want to use the more-reliable technique when possible and fall back otherwise, but I think you've made up your mind about this. Anyway, a proposal like this gets us out of the business of legislating what Everyone Must Do, which I think can only be a plus. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
