Thread: Looks like we'll have a beta5 ...

Looks like we'll have a beta5 ...

From
"Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Just a quick note that we'd like to wrap up a Beta5 during the day
tomorrow, based on all the changes since Beta4 ... is anyone sitting on
any patches that postponing it "just one more day" would help ... ?


Re: Looks like we'll have a beta5 ...

From
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
What about bumping the libpq version?

Chris

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Just a quick note that we'd like to wrap up a Beta5 during the day
> tomorrow, based on all the changes since Beta4 ... is anyone sitting on
> any patches that postponing it "just one more day" would help ... ?
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend



Re: Looks like we'll have a beta5 ...

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> What about bumping the libpq version?

After thinking more, I realized we only need a minor version bump not
major (AFAIR there were no backwards-incompatible API changes this time,
only additions).  That's already been done; so my gripe of yesterday
was incorrect.  Never mind ...
        regards, tom lane


Re: Looks like we'll have a beta5 ...

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > What about bumping the libpq version?
> 
> After thinking more, I realized we only need a minor version bump not
> major (AFAIR there were no backwards-incompatible API changes this time,
> only additions).  That's already been done; so my gripe of yesterday
> was incorrect.  Never mind ...

Got it.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
 


Re: Looks like we'll have a beta5 ...

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> > What about bumping the libpq version?
> 
> After thinking more, I realized we only need a minor version bump not
> major (AFAIR there were no backwards-incompatible API changes this time,
> only additions).  That's already been done; so my gripe of yesterday
> was incorrect.  Never mind ...

Or, should I say, "Glad we are OK with current libpq version numbers".

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073