On 4 August 2016 at 12:45, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 4 August 2016 at 02:15, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> So it seems like fixing libpq's parsing of server_version_num is
> >> something we definitely want to fix ASAP in all back branches.
> > Well, this seems like a good time to make server_version_num GUC_REPORT
> as
> > well...
> To what end?  Existing versions of libpq wouldn't know about it, and new
> versions of libpq couldn't rely on it to get reported by older servers,
> so it'd still be the path of least resistance to examine server_version.

Because it's really silly that we don't, and since we're making a change
that will affect clients anyway (the argument against doing it before),
lets do it.

Otherwise why bother ever adding anything, since it'll take time for
clients to use it?

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to