From: | Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backward compatibility |
Date: | 2017-07-21 15:49:01 |
Message-ID: | CA+FnnTyOpM11pdrj=2GMaXq4dBSoH4H2OUBywcEVQRzdyJvOmQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi, guys,
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> writes:
>> On 7/20/2017 8:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Hm, we need to update that text for the new 2-part version numbering
>>> scheme, don't we?
>
>> will 10 return like 100100 if its 10.1, or 100001 ?
>
> The latter. The two middle digits will be zeroes henceforth, unless
> we somehow get into a situation where the minor version needs to
> exceed 99.
MySQL uses this:
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/mysql-get-server-version.html.
Is it safe to assume that PostgreSQL calculates the version the same way?
Thank you.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-07-21 16:00:46 | Re: Backward compatibility |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2017-07-21 14:39:42 | Re: [GENERAL] huge RAM use in multi-command ALTER of table heirarchy |