Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >> OK, but if human-friendly display is the use-case then it ought to >> duplicate what psql itself would print in, eg, the startup message about >> server version mismatch. The v4 patch does not, in particular it neglects >> PQparameterStatus(pset.db, "server_version"). This would result in >> printing, eg, "11.0" when the user would likely rather see "11devel".
> I understand that you would prefer VERSION_NAME to show something like > "11devel, server 9.6.4" No, that's not what I said. I'm just complaining that as the patch stands it will set SERVER_NAME to "11.0", where I think it should say "11devel" (as of today). > In summary, my prefered option is to have: > CLIENT_VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..." > CLIENT_VERSION_NAME "11devel" > CLIENT_VERSION_NUM 110000 I don't think we want to drop :VERSION; that would accomplish little beyond breaking existing scripts. Plausible choices include duplicating it, like: VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..." CLIENT_VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..." CLIENT_VERSION_NAME "11devel" CLIENT_VERSION_NUM 110000 or just ignoring the discrepancy: VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..." CLIENT_VERSION_NAME "11devel" CLIENT_VERSION_NUM 110000 or just leaving "CLIENT" implicit for all of these variables: VERSION "PostgreSQL 11devel on ..." VERSION_NAME "11devel" VERSION_NUM 110000 Robert seems to prefer the last of those, and that'd be fine with me. (Note that CLIENT is ambiguous anyway: does it mean psql itself, or libpq?) > SERVER_VERSION_NAME "9.6.4" > SERVER_VERSION_NUM 090604 I'm on board with this, except I don't think we should have any leading zero in the numeric form. There are contexts where somebody might think that means octal. 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