Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQtwgrVMEgPuKNGyVZCYZTWSg7NY9G46XcGZy0-Nh3-Rg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
- Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of
people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this
wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful
PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering.
In this case you don't even need the 2nd digit...
Btw, -1 for the idea, as it would remove the possibility to tell that a new major release incrementing the 1st digit of version number brings more enhancement than normal major releases incrementing the 1st digit. This was the case for 9.0, helping people in remembering that streaming replication has been introduced from 9.x series.
--
Michael

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marc Mamin
Date:
Subject: repeated warnings with 9.3 Beta 1 on windows
Next
From: Atri Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture