| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 16:09:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+OCxoybDHpEwy4UH65HyRw4X+vDC-POjdYukeACZK6MocyJyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Dave Page (dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org) wrote:
>> > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written
>> > assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit.
>>
>> Let's just go with 2016 instead then.
>>
>> At least then users would see how old the version they're running is (I
>> was just recently dealing with a 8.4 user...).
>
> We tried, that, "Postgres95". ;-)
Awesome: Postgres16 > Postgres95.
That won't be confusing now will it? :-)
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-05-13 16:10:54 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-05-13 16:08:37 | Re: 10.0 |