From: | teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Holger Klawitter <holger(at)klawitter(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Date: | 2000-10-27 19:01:21 |
Message-ID: | xuy4s1yun0e.fsf@hoser.devel.redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports |
Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > > How compatible with 7.0 and 7.1 be from an application standpoint?
> > > Will applications linked with libraries from 7.0 be able to talk to
> > > the 7.1 database? Any changes in library major versions? The other
> > > way?
>
> > Historically, all applications have been able to talk to newer servers,
> > so a 6.4 client can talk to a 7.0 postmaster, and I believe 7.0 clients
> > can talk to 7.1 postmasters.
>
> > We usually do not go the other way, where 6.5 clients can not talk to
> > 6.4 postmasters. I believe 7.0->7.1 will be able to talk in any
> > 7.0.X/7.1 client and server combination.
>
> He's meaning the libpq version for dynamic link loading.
Not only - I'm interested in both issues.
> Is the libpq.so lib changing versions (like the change from 6.5.x to
> 7.0.x changed from libpq.so.2.0 to libpq.so.2.1, which broke binary
> RPM compatibility for other RPM's linked against libpq.so.2.0, which
> failed when libpq.so.2.1 came on the scene
Huh? Shouldn't happen.
> Not just libpq, though -- libpgtcl.so has also been problematic.
I don't think we ship that as a dynamic library.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-27 19:01:31 | Re: timestamp? |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 18:58:55 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 19:03:33 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 18:58:55 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 19:03:33 | Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2000-10-27 18:58:55 | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |