Greets,

Would it be possible to get something along the lines of the attached
patch in 8? (major,minor,patch,state version defines)

(I tried making them shell vars and giving it to AC_INIT, but it seemed
to want a literal, so...)

Yes, I know there are other ways to get and define this information, but
[something like] this is considerably more convenient, IMO.

--
Regards,
James William Pye

Search Discussions

  • Tom Lane at Oct 31, 2004 at 3:02 pm

    James William Pye writes:
    Would it be possible to get something along the lines of the attached
    patch in 8? (major,minor,patch,state version defines)
    This has been proposed and rejected before, mainly on the grounds that
    it would encourage bad programming practices.

    At compile time, you should be checking the specific feature you care
    about, not a system version number (this is pretty much the entire point
    behind Autoconf). At run time, you need to be making a run-time test
    anyway; compiling against version x.y headers does not guarantee
    anything about what version you will be executing against at runtime.

    regards, tom lane
  • James William Pye at Oct 31, 2004 at 5:28 pm

    On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 08:02, Tom Lane wrote:
    This has been proposed and rejected before, mainly on the grounds that
    it would encourage bad programming practices.
    I admit that I am probably practicing this bad programming at few places
    in my source, and shame on me for it. I have hoped to tighten it up a
    bit later, but it is convenient for the time being.

    At compile time, you should be checking the specific feature you care
    about,
    Well, for one of my uses, it is not a feature check. My PL loads a
    Python extension module whose path is dependent on the major and minor
    version of the PostgreSQL installation that the PL was compiled against.
    So I construct the module path string based on the major and minor at
    compile time.


    If this is the stance that the group has, that is fine. For now, I will
    continue my shameful practice of parsing up pg_config --version and
    defining the components for use in my source. (;

    --
    Regards,
    James William Pye
  • Tom Lane at Oct 31, 2004 at 5:50 pm

    James William Pye writes:
    At compile time, you should be checking the specific feature you care
    about,
    Well, for one of my uses, it is not a feature check. My PL loads a
    Python extension module whose path is dependent on the major and minor
    version of the PostgreSQL installation that the PL was compiled against.
    So I construct the module path string based on the major and minor at
    compile time.
    Er ... can't you just keep it in pkglibdir and refer to it via $libdir?
    Given that 8.0 now supports relocatable installations, I'd think it best
    to avoid hardwiring any paths at compile time.

    regards, tom lane
  • James William Pye at Nov 1, 2004 at 1:25 am

    On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 10:49, Tom Lane wrote:
    Er ... can't you just keep it in pkglibdir and refer to it via $libdir?
    Given that 8.0 now supports relocatable installations, I'd think it best
    to avoid hardwiring any paths at compile time.
    Hmm..

    I think it would be best to keep Python [extension] modules in Python's
    site-packages.

    AFA hardwiring is concerned, I will probably make it a GUC variable in
    8.0 that will default to how I currently hardwire it.

    --
    Regards,
    James William Pye
  • Joe Conway at Oct 31, 2004 at 9:54 pm

    James William Pye wrote:
    If this is the stance that the group has, that is fine. For now, I will
    continue my shameful practice of parsing up pg_config --version and
    defining the components for use in my source. (;
    FWIW, here's what I've been using in PL/R for a while now:

    /* working with postgres 7.3 compatible sources */
    #if (CATALOG_VERSION_NO <= 200211021)
    #define PG_VERSION_73_COMPAT
    #elif (CATALOG_VERSION_NO <= 200310211)
    #define PG_VERSION_74_COMPAT
    #else
    #define PG_VERSION_75_COMPAT
    #endif


    Joe

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedOct 31, '04 at 2:04p
activeNov 1, '04 at 1:25a
posts6
users3
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase