Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions

On 13.03.24 18:12, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:21:27AM -0700, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>> It's not just roadmaps and release pages where we mix up these terms
>> either, it's even in user-facing SQL and libpq routines: both
>> PQserverVersion and current_setting('server_version_num') return the
>> patch release version in the numeric patch field, rather than the
>> numeric minor field (which is always 0).
>>
>> In my view, the best thing would be to move toward consistently using
>> the word "patch" and moving away from the word "minor" for the
>> PostgreSQL quarterly maintenance updates.
>
> I think "minor" is a better term since it contrasts with "major". We
> don't actually supply patches to upgrade minor versions.

There are potentially different adjectives that could apply to "version"
and "release".

The version numbers can be called major and minor, because that just
describes their ordering and significance.

But I do agree that "minor release" isn't quite as clear, because one
could also interpret that as "a release, but a bit smaller this time".
(Also might not translate well, since "minor" and "small" could
translate to the same thing.)

One could instead, for example, describe those as "maintenance releases":

"Are you on the latest maintenance release? Why not? Are you not
maintaining your database?"

That carries much more urgency than the same with "minor".

A maintenance release corresponds to an increase in the minor version
number. It's still tied together, but has different terminology.

The last news item reads:

"The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has released an update to all
supported versions of PostgreSQL"

which has no urgency, but consider

"The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has published maintenance
releases to all supported versions of PostgreSQL"