Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 23:22:16
Message-ID: CAB7nPqRH9106kPZCaRvAw1A8SJLWTQcK-P8muCyp+TbpB-1Dpw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 7:52 AM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:

> What's been proposed before that wouldn't break previous applications
> is a numbering system like this:
>
> 10.0.0
> 10.0.1
> 10.0.2
> 10.0.3
> ...
> 11.0.0
> 11.0.1
>
> i.e. only change the "most-major" version number and always leave the
> "less-major" number as zero.
>
Thanks for the clarification. Firefox did exactly the same from 4.0.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2013-05-27 23:43:40 Re: adding import in pl/python function
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-05-27 23:13:06 Re: adding import in pl/python function