On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 07:26:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: > > "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > Tom> I concur with Michael that there's value in exposing the version > > Tom> number in the numeric form used by PG_VERSION_NUM. However, I > > Tom> also concur with Andrew that if the use-case for this is > > Tom> Makefiles, pg_config is a pretty poor transmission mechanism. We > > Tom> should instead add PG_VERSION_NUM to the version variables set in > > Tom> Makefile.global. > > > I think there's an argument for both. pg_config already has a VERSION= > > string in the output, and I think adding a VERSION_NUM= would be good > > for consistency there. And people definitely do want to do version > > comparisons in makefiles... > > Hm. We're all agreed that there's a use case for exposing PG_VERSION_NUM > to the makefiles, but I did not hear one for adding it to pg_config; and > doing the former takes about two lines whereas adding a pg_config option > entails quite a lot of overhead (documentation, translatable help text, > yadda yadda). So I'm not in favor of doing the latter without a much > more solid case than has been made.
Would PG_VERSION_NUM in the Makefile actually help writers of extensions to do numeric comparisons on the version of PostgreSQL in a way that doesn't win a Rube Goldberg award? If not, that's good and sufficient reason to make it a pg_config output option. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
