Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config
Date: 2015-07-02 23:52:14
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRfZjNOmJxHmx8UcvYsWf4cKG-N1hEdwGiGm4D9QgswBw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ... So attached is a patch that adds VERSION_NUM in
>> Makefile.global.
>
> While there was not exactly universal consensus that we need this, the
> patch as given is merely two lines, so it seems awfully cheap to Just
> Do It. Hence, I've gone ahead and committed it. If we start getting
> complaints about use-cases this doesn't cover, we can re-discuss whether
> it's worth doing more.

This looks fine to me. Thanks.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2015-07-03 00:15:04 Interesting study "what is C in practice"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-07-02 23:07:45 Re: bugfix: incomplete implementation of errhidecontext