Re: 10.0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 10.0
Date: 2016-05-15 02:59:55
Message-ID: 1379.1463281195@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
> I think moving to a two-number format is a mistake: what exactly will
> PQserverVersion() return in that case?

For, say, 10.2 it would be 100002, equivalent to 10.0.2 under old style.

We could redefine it as being major plus four-digit minor, really.
Under the current maintenance scheme we never get anywhere near minor
release 99 before a branch dies ... but having some more breathing room
there would not be a bad thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-05-15 02:51:13 from Greg Sabino Mullane

Responses

  • Re: 10.0 at 2016-05-15 12:02:32 from Michael Paquier

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2016-05-15 03:26:10 Re: 10.0
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2016-05-15 02:51:13 Re: 10.0