Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
От | teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød) |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | xuy4s1yun0e.fsf@hoser.devel.redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org> writes: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > How compatible with 7.0 and 7.1 be from an application standpoint? > > > Will applications linked with libraries from 7.0 be able to talk to > > > the 7.1 database? Any changes in library major versions? The other > > > way? > > > Historically, all applications have been able to talk to newer servers, > > so a 6.4 client can talk to a 7.0 postmaster, and I believe 7.0 clients > > can talk to 7.1 postmasters. > > > We usually do not go the other way, where 6.5 clients can not talk to > > 6.4 postmasters. I believe 7.0->7.1 will be able to talk in any > > 7.0.X/7.1 client and server combination. > > He's meaning the libpq version for dynamic link loading. Not only - I'm interested in both issues. > Is the libpq.so lib changing versions (like the change from 6.5.x to > 7.0.x changed from libpq.so.2.0 to libpq.so.2.1, which broke binary > RPM compatibility for other RPM's linked against libpq.so.2.0, which > failed when libpq.so.2.1 came on the scene Huh? Shouldn't happen. > Not just libpq, though -- libpgtcl.so has also been problematic. I don't think we ship that as a dynamic library. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: