Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits
Date: 2008-12-31 16:22:50
Message-ID: 200812311622.mBVGMoL00494@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On Wednesday 31 December 2008 04:45:01 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> PostgreSQL 8.4devel on i386-pc-bsdi4.3.1, compiled by GCC 2.95.3, 32-bit
>
> > Maybe we should separate all that, e.g.,
>
> > SELECT version(); => 'PostgreSQL 8.4devel'
> > SELECT pg_host_os(); => 'bsdi4.3.1'
> > SELECT pg_host_cpu(); => 'i386' (although this is still faulty, as per my
> > original argument; needs some thought)
> > SELECT pg_compiler(); => 'GCC 2.95.3'
> > SELECT pg_pointer_size(); => 4 (or 32) (this could also be a SHOW variable)
>
> Seems like serious overkill. No one has asked for access to individual
> components of the version string, other than the PG version number
> itself, which we already dealt with.
>
> I didn't actually see a user request for finding out the pointer width,
> either, but if there is one then Bruce's proposal seems fine.

It is true no one asked for this information except Peter (I assume for
just academic reasons), and I don't think we care from a bug reporting
perspective, so I will just keep the patch around in case we ever want it.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-12-31 16:46:23 Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-12-31 16:04:41 Re: TODO items for window functions