On 4 August 2016 at 12:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 4 August 2016 at 02:15, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> So it seems like fixing libpq's parsing of server_version_num is > >> something we definitely want to fix ASAP in all back branches. > > > Well, this seems like a good time to make server_version_num GUC_REPORT > as > > well... > > To what end? Existing versions of libpq wouldn't know about it, and new > versions of libpq couldn't rely on it to get reported by older servers, > so it'd still be the path of least resistance to examine server_version. >
Because it's really silly that we don't, and since we're making a change that will affect clients anyway (the argument against doing it before), lets do it. Otherwise why bother ever adding anything, since it'll take time for clients to use it? -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
