Re: 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Dave Page (dpage@pgadmin.org) wrote:
>> > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written
>> > assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit.
>>
>> Let's just go with 2016 instead then.
>>
>> At least then users would see how old the version they're running is (I
>> was just recently dealing with a 8.4 user...).
>
> We tried, that, "Postgres95".  ;-)

Awesome: Postgres16 > Postgres95.

That won't be confusing now will it? :-)

-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company