>We've changed the numbering scheme once already
AFAIK, the change from 9.4-1210 to 9.4.1211 was made to follow common convention where version number is separated with dots.
I would agree that it is still common for end-users to confuse 9.4 part with PostgreSQL version.
So moving to pgjdbc 42.0.0 would probably make sense.
Just in case: for current pgjdbc 9.4.1212, "9.4" mean nothing. "1212" is just a sequence number.
So 42.0.0 would not harm much.
However, it would enable us to use 42.0.1 vs 42.1.0 for "bugfix" vs "new features" releases.
Current pgjdbc versioning scheme does not leave much room for pgjdbc 9.5.0 or alike.
Vladimir
We've changed the numbering scheme once already. The goal was to remove the need to release when the server released, and vice-versa.
I don't see any benefit to changing the numbering scheme now. Regardless of the number the answer will be the same. "Use the latest"
I do see a downside to changing it again, which is more confusion.
So my vote is to stay the course. 12xx
