From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |
Date: | 2009-12-03 19:25:06 |
Message-ID: | 12590.1259868306@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> In this particular example, it's bad form because it's even possible that
>> 8.5 will actually be 9.0. You don't want to refer to a version number that
>> doesn't even exist for sure yet, lest it leave a loose end that needs to be
>> cleaned up later if that number is changed before release.
> Ah, yes, I like "In 8.4 and earlier versions", or maybe "earlier
> releases". Compare:
Please do *not* resort to awkward constructions just to avoid one
mention of the current version number. If we did decide to call the
next version 9.0, the search-and-replace effort involved is not going
to be measurably affected by any one usage. There are plenty already.
(I did the work when we decided to call 7.5 8.0, so I know whereof
I speak.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-03 19:52:33 | Re: Aggregate ORDER BY patch |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-03 19:13:10 | Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |