Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
| От | Michael Paquier |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB7nPqQtwgrVMEgPuKNGyVZCYZTWSg7NY9G46XcGZy0-Nh3-Rg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
--
Michael
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: