Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Issue with libpq < 8.4

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, pgadmin-hackers <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Issue with libpq < 8.4
Date: 2010-08-24 11:32:25
Message-ID: AANLkTimgSokAc1c1HvcK_E3b4Pj-ZB-irVkxMq7SxBpT@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>
>> Can't we just have it set a variable we could check with a #ifdef? We
>> don't use PQconninfoParse in many files (actually, two). So it would be
>> pretty easy to add the #ifdef line, so that it won't be a big issue for
>> packagers.
>
> We use PQconninfoParse to check to ensure we have a new enough libpq
> to use application_name, so we can avoid sending it with older libpqs.
> If we disable the check for older libpqs, then we'll always get an
> error with them. The only way to fix that would be to only allow a 9.0
> libpq to be used.
>
> The current code at least allows 8.4 and 9.0 libpqs.

What is it that we put into 8.4 that's making that one good enough? It
still didn't actually know about application_name, did it? Or did we
backpatch that knowledge, only not past 8.4?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2010-08-24 11:33:03
Subject: Re: Issue with libpq < 8.4
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-08-24 11:29:52
Subject: Re: Issue with libpq < 8.4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group