From: | Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |
Date: | 1999-12-10 15:19:33 |
Message-ID: | 1B3D5E532D18D311861A00600865478C70BF73@exchange1.nt.maidstone.gov.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:07 PM
To: The Hermit Hacker
Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release
Yeah, I was thinking that if we were to call this 7.0 and have plans
for going to 8.0 as soon as WAL &etc are done, then we'd basically be
dropping one level of version number --- no need for a third number
if major revs are that close together. That's OK with me as long as
we all understand that it's a change in naming practices. There are
things we'd need to change to make it work. For example, PG_VERSION
would need to record only the top version number: 7.0 and 7.1 would be
expected to have compatible databases, not incompatible ones.
PM: Actually, JDBC only has room for a single Major/Minor pair in it's
api, so it could actually help by having differing version numbers
between releases (JDBC wise).
Peter
--
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 1999-12-10 15:33:36 | RE: [HACKERS] Volunteer: Large Tuples / Tuple chaining |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-12-10 15:11:56 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |