Re: Backward compatibility

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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