| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: locale / encoding / meson cleanup |
| Date: | 2026-08-29 12:49:32 |
| Message-ID: | af7aa1c4-88eb-476c-b9df-68105653d180@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-08-28 Fr 6:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 29.08.26 00:07, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> So, two questions: do we want this at all? After all, we have lived
>> with the inconsistencies for a while with few ill effects. And if we
>> do, do we want it for release 19?
>
> I don't see the point of this. There is nothing that says that
> PG_VERSION_STR needs to follow a specific format. It's just an
> information string.
Well, we had tests relying incorrectly on it, so it's not just an opaque
piece of text. I've fixed those to take account of the variance.
But I'm ok with leaving things as they are.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-08-29 13:18:20 | Re: Allow tuple visibility checks without hint-bit, maintenance |
| Previous Message | Antonin Houska | 2026-08-29 11:23:51 | Re: REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) rewrites tables marked with user_catalog_table |