Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
| От | Michael Paquier |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAB7nPqRqczoR5C9YtH-tagNzOtb+yHaLfq5KrPRFCJj4txFmwQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
-- Michael Paquier escribió:> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:You do -- they are used for minor releases, i.e. 10.1 would be a bugfix
>
> > 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...
release for 10.0. If we continue using the current numbering scheme,
10.1 would be the major version after 10.0.
Sorry for the confusion. I meant that the 2nd digit would not be necessary when identifying a given major release, so I just didn't get the meaning of what Craig said. As you say, you would still need the 2nd digit for minor releases.
Michael
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: