Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config

Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 3/24/15 6:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> Why else would you want the version number other than to do some kind of
> comparison?

The question is why, if we supply the version number in a make variable,
you would not just use that variable instead of having to do
"$(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --something)". The shell version adds new failure
modes, removes none, and has no redeeming social value that I can see.

regards, tom lane