On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > Part of this may be my C skills not being good enough - if so, please > enlighten me :-) > > My pg_streamrecv no longer works with 9.1, because it returns > PGRES_COPY_BOTH instead of PGRES_COPY_OUT when initating a copy. > That's fine. > > So I'd like to make it work on both. Specifically, I would like it to > check for PGRES_COPY_BOTH if the server is 9.1 and PGRES_COPY_OUT if > it's 9.0. Which can be done by checking the server version. > > However, when built against a libpq 9.0, it doesn't even have the > symbol PGRES_COPY_BOTH. And I can't check for the presence of said > symbol using #ifdef, since it's an enum. Nor is there a #define > available to check the version of the header. > > Is there any way to check this at compile time (so I know if I can use > the symbol or not), without using autoconf (I don't want to bring in > such a huge dependency for a tiny program)?
Adding a #define to our headers that you can test for seems like the way to go. > Also, I notice that PGRES_COPY_BOTH was inserted "in the middle" of > the enum. Doesn't that mean we can get incorrect values for e.g. > PGRES_FATAL_ERROR if the client is built against one version of libpq > but executes against another? Shouldn't all such enum values always be > added at the end? I think you are right, and that we should fix this. > Finaly, as long as I only use "the 9.0 style replication", > PGRES_COPY_BOTH is actually unnecessary, right? It will work exactly > the same way as PGRES_COPY_OUT? So far, the protocol message is all we've changed. I keep hoping some update synchronous replication patches are going to show up, but so far they haven't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
