Re: [PATCHES] Version checking when loading psql
От | wsheldah@lexmark.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] Version checking when loading psql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200111211558.KAA10467@interlock2.lexmark.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-general |
How hard would it be to do the check only when reporting on a failed command. Something like "[command] failed. Could it be because you're using psql version X and connected to Postgresql version Y?" That way you would have a hint when something failed, but otherwise wouldn't have to worry about it. Unless some commands didn't work by returning bad results without actually "failing" with an error message.... Tom Lane <tgl%sss.pgh.pa.us@interlock.lexmark.com> on 11/21/2001 10:12:02 AM To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e%gmx.net@interlock.lexmark.com> cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg%turnstep.com@interlock.lexmark.com>, pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com (bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [PATCHES] Version checking when loading psql [ redirected from patches to general ] Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Greg Sabino Mullane writes: >> Attached is a little patch that simply verifies that the >> version of psql you are running is the same as the version >> of postgresql you are attaching to. > I'm sure this would annoy people. I'm of two minds about it. It'd annoy *me*, but I know we have seen trouble reports from people who were using version-mismatched psql and didn't understand why some \d commands didn't work. Maybe we should be catering more to newbies here. Any other opinions out there? regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: