On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm, but with this you're trading that problem for "is the right version
> of pg_config in my PATH?".
>
That is probably a solved problem for those who are parsing the output of
--version today.
>
> This idea might well be
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Craig Ringer
> wrote:
> > Attached is a small patch to teach pg_config how to output a
> --version-num
> >
> > With Pg 10, parsing versions got more
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 31 May 2017 9:36 am, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>> Is the data in Makefile.global unsufficient?
> It's a pain in the butt because then you need to find or get passed the
> name of Makefile.global. Then you have to
On 31 May 2017 9:36 am, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Attached is a small patch to teach pg_config how to output a --version-num
>
> With Pg 10, parsing versions got more annoying. Especially
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Attached is a small patch to teach pg_config how to output a --version-num
>
> With Pg 10, parsing versions got more annoying. Especially with
> "10beta1", "9.6beta2" etc into the mix. It makes no sense to force
> tools
Hi all
Attached is a small patch to teach pg_config how to output a --version-num
With Pg 10, parsing versions got more annoying. Especially with
"10beta1", "9.6beta2" etc into the mix. It makes no sense to force
tools and scripts to do this when we can just expose a sensible
pre-formatted one
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 09:12:47AM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 11/27/16 12:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 17:24:36 -0400
> > Make numeric form of PG version number readily available in Makefiles.
>
> If you don't want to wait for that,
I wonder whether a back-patch to
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 03:16:37PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> > While updating some extensions, I noticed that pg_config --version
> > produces output that's...maybe not quite as useful as it might be, at
> > least to a
On 11/27/16 12:16 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 17:24:36 -0400
Make numeric form of PG version number readily available in Makefiles.
If you don't want to wait for that, you can use [1] in shell or Make to
accomplish something similar. Looks like there is a dotted
On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 9:16 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> While updating some extensions, I noticed that pg_config --version
> produces output that's...maybe not quite as useful as it might be, at
> least to a machine, so I'd like to throw out some proposals to fix the
> situation.
Folks,
While updating some extensions, I noticed that pg_config --version
produces output that's...maybe not quite as useful as it might be, at
least to a machine, so I'd like to throw out some proposals to fix the
situation.
Add a --version-numeric option to pg_config
or
Replace the
11 matches
Mail list logo