| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-06-19 00:48:30 |
| Message-ID: | 5765EBDE.90506@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/16/2016 11:01 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>
> I thought about raising this, but I think in the end it's replacing one
> confusing and weird versioning scheme for another confusing and weird
> versioning scheme.
>
> It does have the advantage that that compare a two-part major like
> 090401 vs 090402 won't be confused when they compare 100100 and 100200,
> since it'll be 100001 and 100002. So it's more backward-compatible. But
> ugly.
>
Realistically, though, we're more likely to end up with 10.0.1 than
10.1. I don't think we're anywhere near plumbing the depths of the
stuff which will break because folks are parsing our version numbers
with regexes. In more major software, this will break nagios
check_postgres.
I'm not happy with it, but I believe that's where we'll end up.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2016-06-19 01:20:51 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-18 22:45:01 | Re: Upgrades and Error Messages |