Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Well, if you just want to bump libpq's SO_MAJOR_VERSION, I won't
> > object.
> 
> Yes.  Unless someone objects, I will do that for 8.0.* and 8.1.*.

I am thinking we should up the 8.0.* and 8.1.* releases to have the same
major number, but not make a major libpq bump for every major release
unless it is required, like with prog_name.  Is that the plan?

I guess the big question is whether we would ever want a 7.2 psql or any
other client to automatically use a 7.3 libpq.  In fact by upping the
major every time will 7.2 clients automatically use the 7.3 libpq or
will they have to be relinked?

-- 
  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

In response to

• Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0 at 2005-02-02 22:00:07 from Peter Eisentraut

Responses

• Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0 at 2005-02-03 03:25:50 from Bruce Momjian
• Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0 at 2005-02-03 03:43:42 from Greg Stark

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Joshua D. Drake	Date: 2005-02-02 23:49:59
	Subject: Re: pg_dump bug in 7.3.9 with sequences
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-02-02 22:46:12
	Subject: Re: FunctionCallN improvement.

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2005-02-02 23:53:08
	Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0
Previous:	From: Peter Eisentraut	Date: 2005-02-02 22:00:07
	Subject: Re: libpq API incompatibility between 7.4 and 8.0