Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader

This looks great. Thanks for working on it.

Jim

On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:35:09AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Friday, January 26, 2018, Jim Ryan <jim(at)room118solutions(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Bruce,
> >
> > Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from
> 10.1 to
> > 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I
> misunderstanding?
> >
> > The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1
> to 9.2
> > is considered a major version change or not. I think most users
> would
> > assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is
> in 9.x
> > to 9.y.
> >
> >
> >
> > Which is why we changed ;)
> >
> > Starting with 10 the one and only value after the decimal is a minor
> version
> > bug fix release. The next major version will be 11.
> >
> > Of versions beginning with 9 there were 7 major versions - 9.0 to 9.6;
> the
> > third position value denoted the minor bug fix release.
> >
> > pg-upgrade is only required for upgrading between major versions.
> >
> > On our homeoage we list every major release that is currently supported.
>
> I decided I needed to be more explicit about the major version numbers
> so I have added major and minor examples for the 9.6.x series and 10.x
> series releases. Patch attached.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
>