From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Ian Barwick <barwick@gmx.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: dbi-dev@perl.org
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:49:12 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <200212110349.gBB3nCl20132@candle.pha.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200212100034.31936.barwick@gmx.net>
Ian, can I please have a context diff, diff -c?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Barwick wrote:
> On Monday 09 December 2002 17:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Ian Barwick <barwick@gmx.net> writes:
> > > To avoid voodoo with PostgreSQL version numbers
> > > a check is made whether pg_relcheck exists and
> > > the appropriate query (either 7.3 or pre 7.3)
> > > executed.
> >
> > I would think that looking at version number (select version())
> > would be a much cleaner approach. Or do you think that direct
> > examination of pg_class is a version-independent operation?
>
> No, but I was hoping it will remain stable for long enough
> for what is basically a temporary work around until a revised version of
> DBD::Pg can be produced. It doesn't make any more assumptions
> about pg_class than are made elsewhere in the current Pg.pm.
>
> > This inquiry into pg_relcheck's existence is already arguably wrong
> > in 7.3 (since it's not taking account of which schema pg_relcheck
> > might be found in) and it can only go downhill in future versions.
>
> Doh. Knew I had to be missing something obvious. (Of course,
> anyone using current DBD::Pg with 7.3 as is will have to take
> extra care with system tables and schema namespaces anyway.)
>
> So out with the candle wax and pins ;-). Am I right
> in thinking that the string returned by SELECT version()
> starts with the word "PostgreSQL" followed by:
> a space;
> a single digit indicating the major version number;
> a full stop / decimal point;
> a single digit indicating the minor version number;
> and either "interim release" number (e.g. ".1" in the case of 7.3.1), or
> "devel", "rc1" etc. ?
> And that this has been true since 6.x and will continue for the forseeable
> future (i.e. far far longer than the intended lifespan of attached patch)?
>
>
> Ian Barwick
> barwick@gmx.net
>
> Attached: revised patch
>
>
>
>
>
>
[ Attachment, skipping... ]
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, barwick@gmx.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, dbi-dev@perl.org
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
In-Reply-To: <200212110349.gBB3nCl20132@candle.pha.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox