Re: Backward compatibility

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Backward compatibility
Date: 2017-07-21 16:00:46
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYsE1Fid67EENtn_b_vJQSU-EEQWEqiRQrMV6k0jn9Xmw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Igor Korot <ikorot01(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Yes and no. Things are changing with this next release. The next two
major releases will be:

10.x (or 10.0.x using historical nomenclature - 1000xx)
11.x (or 11.0.x using historical nomenclature - 1100xx)

For prior releases the major versions are:

9.2.x
9.3.x
9.4.x
9.5.x
9.6.x

If you want to consider the 9 to be "major" and the .[2-6] to be minor for
mechanical purposes that's fine but the change from 9.5 to 9.6 is a major
change with backward incompatibilities - which a minor change doesn't
allow. In the new setup the thing you call "minor" will always remain at
zero in order to eventually mitigate the need to have this kind of
discussion. Since it is always going to be "0" we simply omit printing it.

David J.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Igor Korot 2017-07-21 16:11:14 Re: Backward compatibility
Previous Message Igor Korot 2017-07-21 15:49:01 Re: Backward compatibility