Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions
Date: 2021-04-21 14:04:40
Message-ID: a972a924-d850-278e-f415-62ab1c9bbaaa@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 4/21/21 1:13 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 01:11:59PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Here's the patch for that.
> Thanks.
>
>> + # Accept standard formats, in case caller has handed us the output of a
>> + # postgres command line tool
>> + $arg = $1
>> + if ($arg =~ m/\(?PostgreSQL\)? (\d+(?:\.\d+)*(?:devel)?)/);
> Interesting. This would work even if using --with-extra-version,
> which is a good thing.
>
>> +# render the version number in the standard "joined by dots" notation if
>> +# interpolated into a string
>> +sub _stringify
>> +{
>> + my $self = shift;
>> + return join('.', @$self);
>> +}
> This comes out a bit strangely when using a devel build as this
> appends -1 as sub-version number, becoming say 14.-1. It may be
> clearer to add back "devel" in this case?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to add some perldoc to PostgresVersion.pm?

Here's a patch with these things attended to.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
PostgresNodeVersion-v2.patch text/x-patch 5.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-04-21 14:06:56 Re: Stale description for pg_basebackup
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2021-04-21 13:46:40 Re: ML-based indexing ("The Case for Learned Index Structures", a paper from Google)