Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version

2016-08-29 Thread Craig Ringer
On 29 August 2016 at 11:46, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-08-29 11:41:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: >> On 29 August 2016 at 02:52, Tom Lane wrote: >> > "Regina Obe" writes: >> >> The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version

2016-08-28 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-08-29 11:41:00 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 29 August 2016 at 02:52, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Regina Obe" writes: > >> The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from pg_config is > >> breaking in the 10 cycle > > > > TBH, I wonder why you

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version

2016-08-28 Thread Craig Ringer
On 29 August 2016 at 02:52, Tom Lane wrote: > "Regina Obe" writes: >> The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from pg_config is >> breaking in the 10 cycle > > TBH, I wonder why you are doing that in the first place; it does not > seem like the

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version

2016-08-28 Thread Tom Lane
"Regina Obe" writes: > The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from pg_config is > breaking in the 10 cycle TBH, I wonder why you are doing that in the first place; it does not seem like the most reliable source of version information. If you need to do

Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Version 10, missing minor version

2016-08-28 Thread Joe Conway
On 08/28/2016 09:55 AM, Regina Obe wrote: > The routine in PostGIS to parse out the version number from pg_config is > breaking in the 10 cycle. > > Issue seems to be because there is no minor specified. > > e.g. > > pgconfig --version > > returns: > > PostgreSQL 10devel > > Instead of