| From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 15:34:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAA-aLv6S4DpNgUfcsvMmw8J4W7nf1-datFfE87rfMwGNfuVhAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have
>> already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support.
>
> I suspect that won't be an issue (I never heard of it being for 7.5,
> which was released as 8.0 - but is smattered all over pgAdmin 3 for
> example) - largely because in such apps we're almost always checking
> for a version greater than or less than x.y.
>
> I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written
> assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit.
Is that likely? That would be remarkably myopic, but I guess possible.
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-13 15:39:06 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2016-05-13 15:29:34 | Re: 10.0 |