Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> I concur with Michael that there's value in exposing the version
> Tom> number in the numeric form used by PG_VERSION_NUM. However, I
> Tom> also concur with Andrew that if the use-case for this is
> Tom> Makefiles, pg_config is a pretty poor transmission mechanism. We
> Tom> should instead add PG_VERSION_NUM to the version variables set in
> Tom> Makefile.global.

> I think there's an argument for both. pg_config already has a VERSION=
> string in the output, and I think adding a VERSION_NUM= would be good
> for consistency there. And people definitely do want to do version
> comparisons in makefiles...

Hm. We're all agreed that there's a use case for exposing PG_VERSION_NUM
to the makefiles, but I did not hear one for adding it to pg_config; and
doing the former takes about two lines whereas adding a pg_config option
entails quite a lot of overhead (documentation, translatable help text,
yadda yadda). So I'm not in favor of doing the latter without a much
more solid case than has been made.

regards, tom lane