| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(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 23:07:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200212052307.gB5N7oA03826@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> 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.
Yes, now that I remember, that was the big distinction. One requires a
recompile, the other one doesn't even work with a newer db.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-12-05 23:14:30 | Re: [PATCHES] Patch to make Turks happy. |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2002-12-05 23:06:38 | Re: Shrinkwrap Windows Product, any issues? Anyone? (postmaster |