Re: New version numbering practices

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New version numbering practices
Date: 2016-08-04 13:57:42
Message-ID: 32376.1470319062@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Sorry, but I don't buy that. I think sending both server_version and
>> server_version_num would be silly, and we're certainly not going to stop
>> sending server_version.

> What is wrong with sending machine-readable value?

[ shrug... ] What do you claim is not machine-readable about
server_version?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2016-08-04 14:16:02 Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON
Previous Message Mithun Cy 2016-08-04 13:54:03 "Some tests to cover hash_index"