| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Date: | 2013-05-27 09:45:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQtwgrVMEgPuKNGyVZCYZTWSg7NY9G46XcGZy0-Nh3-Rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> - Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of
> people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this
> wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful
> PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
> etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering.
>
In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit...
Btw, -1 for the idea, as it would remove the possibility to tell that a new
major release incrementing the 1st digit of version number brings more
enhancement than normal major releases incrementing the 1st digit. This was
the case for 9.0, helping people in remembering that streaming replication
has been introduced from 9.x series.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-05-27 10:19:24 | Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture |
| Previous Message | Marc Mamin | 2013-05-27 09:37:09 | repeated warnings with 9.3 Beta 1 on windows |