Re: [HACKERS] Shared library version

On 2000-01-10, Tom Lane mentioned:

> "Oliver Elphick" <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > There appear to have been changes in the shared library libpq.
> > Since the library has changed, it needs to have a new version number.
>
> You're right, we need to bump the number before release (and I hope we
> remember!). Past practice has not been to bump the number during
> development cycles, since we'd shortly have ridiculously high version
> numbers if we incremented them at every development change.
>
> libpq++ has also had API changes requiring a new version number before
> release, I think --- any others?

It would at least be fair to bump the minor version number when you do the
branch for a new version, so now we'd be at 2.1. IIRC the dynamic linker
will pick the one with the higher minor version. Since we do not have any
incompatible changes (?) we shouldn't bump the major version.

--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden