Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

Michael Paquier escribió:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > - Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of
> > people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this
> > wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful
> > PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
> > etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering.
> >
> In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit...

You do -- they are used for minor releases, i.e. 10.1 would be a bugfix
release for 10.0. If we continue using the current numbering scheme,
10.1 would be the major version after 10.0.

> Btw, -1 for the idea, as it would remove the possibility to tell that a new
> major release incrementing the 1st digit of version number brings more
> enhancement than normal major releases incrementing the 1st digit. This was
> the case for 9.0, helping people in remembering that streaming replication
> has been introduced from 9.x series.

All major releases bring lots of enhancements. Streaming replication
might be great for some people, but I'm sure there are things in 8.4 and
9.1 that are equally great for some other people.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services