Thread

1. PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly

   Kieran McCusker <kieran.mccusker@gmail.com> — 2018-01-22T18:39:29Z

   Hi
   
   I was looking at an issue with ogr_fdw where it is trying to get
   the PG_VERSION_NUM when I noticed that in Postgresql 10.1 this is declared
   as:
   
   #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100001
   
   But shouldn't it be
   
   #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100
   
   or am I being dense, in which case sorry to have bothered you.
   
   Many Thanks
   
   Kieran McCusker
   

2. Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly

   David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> — 2018-01-22T18:47:36Z

   On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Kieran McCusker <kieran.mccusker@gmail.com
   > wrote:
   
   > Hi
   >
   > I was looking at an issue with ogr_fdw where it is trying to get
   > the PG_VERSION_NUM when I noticed that in Postgresql 10.1 this is declared
   > as:
   >
   > #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100001
   >
   > But shouldn't it be
   >
   > #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100
   >
   > or am I being dense, in which case sorry to have bothered you.
   >
   >
   ​Beginning with v10 the middle two digits with ALWAYS be zero - only the
   first two (major release) and last two (patch version) are changed.  10.1
   means v10 with the first patch release, unless 9.6 which is a major version
   ​in its own right and, with patch version, reads 9.6.3
   
   David J.
   

3. Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly

   Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> — 2018-01-22T19:04:55Z

   Kieran McCusker wrote:
   > Hi
   > 
   > I was looking at an issue with ogr_fdw where it is trying to get
   > the PG_VERSION_NUM when I noticed that in Postgresql 10.1 this is declared
   > as:
   > 
   > #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100001
   > 
   > But shouldn't it be
   > 
   > #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100
   > 
   > or am I being dense, in which case sorry to have bothered you.
   
   You're not being dense -- the way we're using it is indeed a bit odd.
   But it was a concious decision to leave it like this: the reason is that
   we've been using these two digits to indicate patch level rather than
   major for so long, that is seems less likely to break version parsing
   tools if we continue to do that.  So the patch level for release 10 is
   going to use the last two digits only, with the two middle digits
   remaining constant 00 forever.
   
   -- 
   Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
   PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
   
   
   

4. Re: PG_VERSION_NUM formatted incorrectly

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2018-01-22T19:14:41Z

   Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
   > Kieran McCusker wrote:
   >> But shouldn't it be
   >> #define PG_VERSION_NUM 100100
   
   > You're not being dense -- the way we're using it is indeed a bit odd.
   > But it was a concious decision to leave it like this: the reason is that
   > we've been using these two digits to indicate patch level rather than
   > major for so long, that is seems less likely to break version parsing
   > tools if we continue to do that.  So the patch level for release 10 is
   > going to use the last two digits only, with the two middle digits
   > remaining constant 00 forever.
   
   Right.  If we did it the other way, much code would think that 10.1
   is a new major version, not a new minor version.
   
   			regards, tom lane