Re: 10.0

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:16:48AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 5/16/16 9:53 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the
> >> wall with no version number and then the first five releases were
> >> Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2,
> >> Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth
> >> major release counting those as the first five releases.
>
> > The last release out of Berkeley was 4.2.
>
> Correct --- I have a copy of that tarball.
>
> > Then Postgres95 was "5", and then PostgreSQL started at 6.
>
> I wasn't actually around at the time, but our commit history starts
> with this:
>
> Author: Marc G. Fournier <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
> Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [d31084e9d] 1996-07-09 06:22:35 +0000
>
> Postgres95 1.01 Distribution - Virgin Sources
>
> The first mention of 6.anything is here:
>
> Author: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
> Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [a2b7f6297] 1996-12-28 02:01:58 +0000
>
> Updated changes for 6.0.
>
> I see no references in the commit history to 5.anything, but there
> are some references like this:

The sole reason we jumped from Postgres 1.09 to 6.0 was that in Postgres
1.0.X, $PGDATA/PG_VERSION contained '5', meaning when Berkeley went from
University Postgres 4.2 to Postgres95 1.0, they didn't reset PG_VERSION.

We really had no way of going to Postgres 2.0 unless we were prepared to
have data/PG_VERSION never match the major version number.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +