| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mark Dilger <hornschnorter(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-16 13:53:16 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMd8N02MTDfs4_+qs3BxQ4yHryVpvfAa9ZY_kpOb_ytdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If that were the standard, we'd never have bumped the major version at
> all, and would still be on 4.something (or whatever Berkeley was using
> when they tossed it over the wall; I'm not too clear on whether there was
> ever a 5.x release).
I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the
wall with no version number and then the first five releases were
Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2,
Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth
major release counting those as the first five releases.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2016-05-16 14:01:58 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2016-05-16 13:21:10 | [PATCH][Documination] Add optional USING keyword before opclass name in INSERT statemet |