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

Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem

From: Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: dbi-dev(at)perl(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Date: 2002-12-09 23:34:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
On Monday 09 December 2002 17:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > To avoid voodoo with PostgreSQL version numbers
> > a check is made whether pg_relcheck exists and
> > the appropriate query (either 7.3 or pre 7.3)
> > executed.
> I would think that looking at version number (select version())
> would be a much cleaner approach.  Or do you think that direct
> examination of pg_class is a version-independent operation?

No, but I was hoping it will remain stable for long enough
for what is basically a temporary work around until a revised version of 
DBD::Pg can be produced. It doesn't make any more assumptions 
about pg_class than are made elsewhere in the current

> This inquiry into pg_relcheck's existence is already arguably wrong
> in 7.3 (since it's not taking account of which schema pg_relcheck
> might be found in) and it can only go downhill in future versions.

Doh. Knew I had to be missing something obvious. (Of course,
anyone using current DBD::Pg with 7.3 as is will have to take
extra care with system tables and schema namespaces anyway.)

So out with the candle wax and pins ;-). Am I right
in thinking that the string returned by SELECT version()
starts with the word "PostgreSQL" followed by:
  a space; 
  a single digit indicating the major version number;
  a full stop / decimal point;
  a single digit indicating the minor version number;
and either "interim release" number (e.g. ".1" in the case of 7.3.1), or
"devel", "rc1" etc. ?
And that this has been true since 6.x and will continue for the forseeable 
future (i.e. far far longer than the intended lifespan of attached patch)?

Ian Barwick

Attached: revised patch

Attachment: Pg.patch
Description: text/x-diff (801 bytes)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Patrick WelcheDate: 2002-12-09 23:39:17
Subject: SIGSEGV
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-12-09 23:19:57
Subject: Re: DB Tuning Notes for comment...

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-12-09 23:47:30
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-12-09 16:03:52
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group