Re: 10.0

On 15/05/16 14:42, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
> <aht(at)8kdata(dot)com <mailto:aht(at)8kdata(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 14/05/16 20:02, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
> +1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc.
>
> It will hopefully both end these discussions and remove the
> confusion the current versioning scheme has (I too heard way
> to many times about people using postgres8 or postgres9).
>
>
> Even worse: I've been told that a company was using
> "PostgreSQL 8.5" ^_^
>
>
> That's not necessarily the version numbers fault. That's them using an
> alpha version.. (Yes, I've run into a customer just a couple of years
> ago that were still on 8.5 alpha)
>
>

It was their fault, obviously. There were not using the alpha
version, they were using 8.3 but they thought it was 8.5 (and yes,
that's terrible that they provide information without checking it).
Anyway, and not being version number's fault, having one less number may
have helped here and probably in other cases too.

Álvaro

--
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa

-----------
8Kdata