From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200212142337.gBENb1n00799@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem
In-Reply-To: <200212100034.31936.barwick@gmx.net>
To: Ian Barwick <barwick@gmx.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 18:37:01 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, dbi-dev@perl.org,
	pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, david@wheeler.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


Thanks.  Patch applied.  David, time to package up a new version of DBD:Pg?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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