Re: [PATCH] server_version_num should be GUC_REPORT

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] server_version_num should be GUC_REPORT
Date: 2015-01-09 14:53:27
Message-ID: 5204.1420815207@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> While looking into client code that relies on parsing server_version
> instead of checking server_version_num, I was surprised to discover that
> server_version_num isn't sent to the client by the server as part of the
> standard set of parameters reported post-auth.

Why should it be? server_version is what's documented to be sent.

> The attached patch marks server_version_num GUC_REPORT and documents
> that it's reported to the client automatically.

I think this is just a waste of network bandwidth. No client-side code
could safely depend on its being available for many years yet, therefore
they're going to keep using server_version.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-01-09 15:38:54 Re: Translating xlogreader.c
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2015-01-09 14:38:57 Re: Parallel Seq Scan