Re: Improved \df(+) in psql + backward-compatibility
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improved \df(+) in psql + backward-compatibility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9785.1125326086@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improved \df(+) in psql + backward-compatibility (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improved \df(+) in psql + backward-compatibility
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > If we're going to do backwards compatibility for psql then we need to do > it in a fairly comprehensive way, not bit by bit, because we can > reasonably say either "we support backwards compatibility" or "we don't > support backwards compatibility", but we cannot reasonably say "we > support backwards compatibility just for these commands" - that's way > too confusing. Yeah. It would be good to set some parameters before starting: how far back is reasonable to support? pg_dump goes back to 7.0 but that's now mostly for historical reasons, ie, 7.0 was the immediately previous release when we started making it do backwards-compatible dumps. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to make psql go that far back. "Back to 8.0" would be a nice round figure... > The task is probably non-trivial - just look at pg_dump. > Might be another good starting hackers project. If you consulted the back branches of psql source code it wouldn't be too hard I would think, though surely tedious. As an aside, I would most certainly NOT use the "switch" coding style suggested upthread, as that is guaranteed to break completely every time there's a version bump. Do it the way pg_dump does, with a series of "if (version >= something)" tests. Then you only have to change a given piece of code when there's a direct reason to change it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: