Re: 10.0

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

>
> > On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is not a plea for keeping the three part versioning system. It's
> just
> > a plea not to have a 2 part versioning system masquerading as a three
> > part versioning system, or vice versa.
>
> To clarify my concern, I never want to have to write code like this:
>
> CASE WHEN pg_version eq '11.1' OR pg_version eq '11.0.1' THEN foo()
> WHEN pg_version eq '11.2' OR pg_version eq '11.0.2'
> THEN bar()
> ....
> or
>
> if (0 == strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.1") || 0 ==
> strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.0.1"))
> foo();
> else if (0 == strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.2") || 0 ==
> strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.0.2"))
> bar();
>
> either in sql, perl, c, java, or anywhere else. As soon as you have two
> different
> formats for the version string, you get into this hell. Yeah, ok, you may
> have
> a sql level function for this, but I'm thinking about applications
> somewhat removed
> from a direct connection to the database, where you can't be sure which
> format
> you'll be handed.
>

Now you argue for keeping the middle number on pure compatibility
grounds.​..

The correct format is: 110001 and 110002

Which pretty much boils down to "we're keeping the middle number but it
will always be zero".

So, I'll suppose you are giving a +1 to keeping the human-readable display
10.0.x - and will let other's interpret your reasons as they will.

David J.