| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, 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 16:12:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAOuzzgo5-k_45aqHNWPgvfj2S_DUiXfkigajf9k7HaFytB3Scw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, May 13, 2016, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >> * Dave Page (dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org <javascript:;>) wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Let's just go with 2016 instead then.
> >>
> >> At least then users would see how old the version they're running is (I
> >> was just recently dealing with a 8.4 user...).
> >
> > We tried, that, "Postgres95". ;-)
>
> Awesome: Postgres16 > Postgres95.
>
> That won't be confusing now will it? :-)
>
We'll just say you have to be using a special collation with 9.5.0 to get
the right sort order.. ;)
/me hides from Peter
Thanks!
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-05-13 16:12:23 | Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2016-05-13 16:10:54 | Re: 10.0 |