Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-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
> >
> 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...


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2007-04-24 05:58:32
Subject: Re: RETURN QUERY in PL/PgSQL?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-04-24 05:02:40
Subject: Re: TODO idea - implicit constraints across child tables with a common column as primary key (but obviously not a shared index)

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: FedericoDate: 2007-04-24 06:13:18
Subject: Re: cost per transaction
Previous:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2007-04-24 03:17:28
Subject: Re: cost per transaction

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group