2015-07-05 16:51 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> ... So attached is a patch that adds VERSION_NUM in > >>> Makefile.global. > > >> While there was not exactly universal consensus that we need this, the > >> patch as given is merely two lines, so it seems awfully cheap to Just > >> Do It. Hence, I've gone ahead and committed it. If we start getting > >> complaints about use-cases this doesn't cover, we can re-discuss whether > >> it's worth doing more. > > > This looks fine to me. Thanks. > > After further thought I started wondering why I hadn't back-patched this. > It's certainly safe/trivial enough for back-patching. If we leave it just > in HEAD, then extension authors wouldn't be able to use it in the intended > way until 9.5 is old enough that they don't care about supporting 9.5.x > anymore; which is perhaps 5 years away. If we back-patch all supported > branches then it would be safe to rely on VERSION_NUM for building > extensions within a year or two. > > Any objections to doing that? >
+1 Pavel > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
