| From: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>, Lee Kindness <lkindness(at)csl(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PQnotifies() in 7.3 broken? |
| Date: | 2002-12-05 23:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | 20021205230513.GE50481@xs4all.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:27:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It is not real clear to me whether we need a major version bump, rather
> than a minor one. We *do* need to signal binary incompatibility. Who
> can clarify the rules here?
One thing I wonder about: should the rules make any distinction between
API incompatibilities and client protocol incompatibilities? For the
former I would imagine one would like to have some "minor" version number
increase whenever features are added and a "major" number be incremented
when changes become incompatible. For the former, one would probably
want to have a similar rule but with a dichotomy between server-side
upgrades and client-side upgrades.
Jeroen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ian Barwick | 2002-12-05 23:06:12 | Q: "unknown expression type 108" ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-12-05 22:51:48 | Re: Segmentation fault in 7.3 while vacuuming |