Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD8C475AD4 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (momjian.navpoint.com [207.106.42.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF7E475A09 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:57:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id gBU4vWl21750; Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:57:32 -0500 (EST) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200212300457.gBU4vWl21750@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: Patch for DBD::Pg pg_relcheck problem In-Reply-To: <200212142337.gBENb1n00799@candle.pha.pa.us> To: Bruce Momjian Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 23:57:32 -0500 (EST) Cc: Ian Barwick , Tom Lane , dbi-dev@perl.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org, david@wheeler.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL99 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200212/81 X-Sequence-Number: 3494 Where are we on the release of a new DBDpg version? As I remember the only open item is handling binary values, but at this point, maybe we should just push out a release and fix it later. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 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 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 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > -- 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