Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Kieran McCusker <kieran(dot)mccusker(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly
Date: 2018-01-22 19:14:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Kieran McCusker wrote:
>> But shouldn't it be
>> #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100

> You're not being dense -- the way we're using it is indeed a bit odd.
> But it was a concious decision to leave it like this: the reason is that
> we've been using these two digits to indicate patch level rather than
> major for so long, that is seems less likely to break version parsing
> tools if we continue to do that. So the patch level for release 10 is
> going to use the last two digits only, with the two middle digits
> remaining constant 00 forever.

Right. If we did it the other way, much code would think that 10.1
is a new major version, not a new minor version.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message fletchowns 2018-01-22 23:30:27 RE: BUG #15018: yum install postgis24_96 failure
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-01-22 19:04:55 Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly