On 6/14/16 3:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
D) Add a version function to 10.0 that returns both parts separately.
>
> My vote is D. Parsing version() output is a wart, but coming out with a
> split output version of that in 9.6 that still has to support 3 numbers
> would also be a wart. We've lived with the parsing wart this long, so lets
> just add an explicit output version to 10.0.
>
> Any ideas on naming for such a function? version_detail()? I suppose while
> we're at this we might as well provide the compile details as well.
This seems kind of silly, because anybody who is writing code that
might have to run against an existing version of the database won't be
able to use it. The one thing that absolutely has to be cross-version
is the method of determining which version you're running against.
We're talking about a function that doesn't currently exist anyway. So
no matter what, you won't be able to use it if you're interested in
<10.0 (or <9.6 if we went with one of the other proposals).
Unless folks were thinking this is something that would be backpatched?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
