Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config

2015-07-05 16:51 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 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:
> >>> ... 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.
>
> After further thought I started wondering why I hadn't back-patched this.
> It's certainly safe/trivial enough for back-patching. If we leave it just
> in HEAD, then extension authors wouldn't be able to use it in the intended
> way until 9.5 is old enough that they don't care about supporting 9.5.x
> anymore; which is perhaps 5 years away. If we back-patch all supported
> branches then it would be safe to rely on VERSION_NUM for building
> extensions within a year or two.
>
> Any objections to doing that?
>

+1

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>