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 <br...@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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
