Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
Date
Msg-id ZfHeYR589ZciKKjP@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions  (Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>)
Responses Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
List pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alexander Lakhin
Date:
Subject: Re: pg16: XX000: could not find pathkey item to sort
Next
From: "Amonson, Paul D"
Date:
Subject: RE: Popcount optimization using AVX512