On 3/25/15 2:00 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-25 14:50:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>Jim Nasby<jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes:
> >On 3/24/15 6:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>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.
>
> >Why else would you want the version number other than to do some kind of
> >comparison?
>
>The question is why, if we supply the version number in a make variable,
>you would not just use that variable instead of having to do
>"$(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --something)". The shell version adds new failure
>modes, removes none, and has no redeeming social value that I can see.
I think using the makefile is preferrable if you have the version
dependency in the makefile. But if you don't actually use make
(e.g. stuff not written in C) or you need the detection in configure or
something, it's different.
Exactly; not every problem can be solved by make. I know I've had to
futz with the output of "SELECT version()" in the past, and I think I've
had to do the same with pg_config --version.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
