Re: 10.0

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Or we could adopt the very reasonable and practical policy of:
>>
>> The current versioning scheme isn't broke, so we aren't going to fix it.
>
> The idea that this discussion is not fixing any real
> problem, though -- that rings true.

sure -- it's my fault for starting the conversation back up.  I was
wondering about supporting older version checks, but only because I
was unaware of the 'machine' variant of the version check
(server_version_num), which properly supports numerical ordering for
historical versions.  If there's anything to do here, maybe we ought
to document that server_version_num should be used for checking
version a little more strongly.  Judging by google searching, this is
as not widely known as it should be.

merlin