| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
| Date: | 2007-04-24 05:32:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20070424053243.A34AADCC876@svr2.hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
> > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
> > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See
> > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>
> Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you get that idea?
As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your patch...
/Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Federico | 2007-04-24 06:13:18 | Re: cost per transaction |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2007-04-24 03:17:28 | Re: cost per transaction |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-04-24 05:58:32 | Re: RETURN QUERY in PL/PgSQL? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-24 05:02:40 | Re: TODO idea - implicit constraints across child tables with a common column as primary key (but obviously not a shared index) |