Re: Backward compatibility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Backward compatibility
Date: 2017-07-21 03:58:34
Message-ID: 1272.1500609514@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/20/2017 8:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, we need to update that text for the new 2-part version numbering
>> scheme, don't we?

> will 10 return like 100100 if its 10.1, or 100001 ?

The latter. The two middle digits will be zeroes henceforth, unless
we somehow get into a situation where the minor version needs to
exceed 99.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikhil 2017-07-21 05:10:42 Logging at schema level
Previous Message John R Pierce 2017-07-21 03:46:37 Re: Backward compatibility