> On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Karen Hill wrote:
>
> >I was just looking at all the upcoming features scheduled to make it
> >into 8.3, and with all those goodies, wouldn't it make sense for this
> >to be a 9.0 release instead of an 8.3? It looks like postgresql is
> >rapidly catching up to oracle if 8.3 branch gets every feature
> >scheduled for it.
At one point there was discussion about using changes to the first digit
to indicate that a dump and restore was needed because of an on disk format
change and that changes to the second digit would indicate that only catalog
entries have changed and that an upgrade tool (that doesn't exist yet) could
be used to make the changes with minimal downtime.