| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 21:14:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0w81zVK8NGw9XUm7VN9fpAVpRBJskvf=jsMQy9Ax7q_BA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> Or we could adopt the very reasonable and practical policy of:
>>
>> The current versioning scheme isn't broke, so we aren't going to fix it.
>
> The idea that this discussion is not fixing any real
> problem, though -- that rings true.
sure -- it's my fault for starting the conversation back up. I was
wondering about supporting older version checks, but only because I
was unaware of the 'machine' variant of the version check
(server_version_num), which properly supports numerical ordering for
historical versions. If there's anything to do here, maybe we ought
to document that server_version_num should be used for checking
version a little more strongly. Judging by google searching, this is
as not widely known as it should be.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-20 21:23:33 | Re: forcing a rebuild of the visibility map |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-20 21:11:17 | Re: 10.0 |