Re: 10.0

On 06/20/2016 02:14 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Or we could adopt the very reasonable and practical policy of:
>>>
>>> The current versioning scheme isn't broke, so we aren't going to fix it.
>>
>> The idea that this discussion is not fixing any real
>> problem, though -- that rings true.
>
> sure -- it's my fault for starting the conversation back up. I was
> wondering about supporting older version checks, but only because I
> was unaware of the 'machine' variant of the version check
> (server_version_num), which properly supports numerical ordering for
> historical versions. If there's anything to do here, maybe we ought
> to document that server_version_num should be used for checking
> version a little more strongly. Judging by google searching, this is
> as not widely known as it should be.

I certainly had no idea it even existed until you displayed the query. I
have always used version() but then, I am not a -hacker.

Sincerely,

JD

>
> merlin
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.