On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 14:31, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> How about something like the below?
> I still think that this is optimizing the wrong thing. We care about
> the clarity of the message the user sees, not about how short or clean
> the Perl code is. I'm inclined to stay with the same basic
> implementation and just hack up the regexp some more to cope with 5.11's
> more verbose -v output.
Cant argue with that. However, I dont think my sed foo is up to the
challenge ATM. :)
BTW this is the perl commit that changed it:
Author: David Golden <dagolden(at)cpan(dot)org>
Date: Thu Nov 12 10:46:30 2009 -0500
Change perl -v version format
This is perl 5, version 11, subversion 1 (v5.11.1) ...
The rationale for this change is that the Perl 5 interpreter will never
increment PERL_REVISION from 5 to 6, so we want people to start focusing
on the PERL_VERSION number as most significant and PERL_SUBVERSION as
equivalent to a "release number". In other words, "perl 5" is a
language, this is the 11th version of it, and the second release of that
version (counting from zero). Among other things, this makes the
output of -v and -V more consistent.
The old v-string style is included for familiarity and usage in code.
For builds from git, it will include the same extended format as it
did before, e.g. "(v5.11.1-176-gaf24cc9*)"
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-02-22 22:38:38|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5103: "pg_ctl -w (re)start" fails with custom
|Previous:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2010-02-22 21:31:40|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5339: Version of Perl detected incorrectly|