| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, 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 14:01:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1a015f64-b485-3b06-aeb0-d7e1e53ff8d8@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/16/16 9:53 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> 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.
The last release out of Berkeley was 4.2. Then Postgres95 was "5", and
then PostgreSQL started at 6.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-16 14:16:48 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2016-05-16 13:53:16 | Re: 10.0 |