Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
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:

Предыдущее
От: Marc Mamin
Дата:
Сообщение: repeated warnings with 9.3 Beta 1 on windows
Следующее
От: Atri Sharma
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture