Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> One hiccup I found is that server_version_num is not sent to clients. >> Instead, libpq assembles the numeric version number itself from the >> string version, and it will fail if it sees only one number (e.g., >> 10devel). It will then set the version number to 0 for "unknown".
Ugh. > This pretty much sucks. I suppose we could at least alleviate the > problem by back-patching some intelligence about the new scheme into > back-branches, but of course that will only help people if they > install newer minor releases. Yeah. I doubt there is much reason to assume that people would be using, say, a 9.5.5 psql and a 9.5.3 libpq or vice versa. Whatever the current client behavior is is what people will see. Having said that, this sort of problem is one reason we wanted to give ourselves a full year to implement the new scheme. If we put some appropriate fix into the back branches *now*, there would be a fair amount of daylight for that to spread into the field before any users would be seeing v10 servers in practice. So it seems like fixing libpq's parsing of server_version_num is something we definitely want to fix ASAP in all back branches. Is there anything else that's particularly bad? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers