We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


Wed, 9 May 2001 20:54:54 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Shared library versions
> We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
> Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.

I thought I did that long ago for 7.1, or I should have anyway.  I don't
see the commits either.  Seems we can't do it in a minor release.  Will
have to wait for 7.2, but since there really wasn't much API change in
7.1, I think we are OK.  Not sure if we should update them if there are
no API changes, or were there?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 9 May 2001 15:12:02 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Shared library versions
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
> Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.

Ummm ... unless there are any changes that would require someone to
recompile their apps between v7.1.1 and v7.1.2, I don't think so ... they
we are just creating potential problems for those upgrading from
v7.1/v7.1.1 to the latest stable, where there are no changes ...

If we were to do it, it would have to be on the v7.x, not v7.x.y ...



Wed, 9 May 2001 16:20:36 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Shared library versions
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
> > Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.
>
> I thought I did that long ago for 7.1, or I should have anyway.  I don't
> see the commits either.  Seems we can't do it in a minor release.  Will
> have to wait for 7.2, but since there really wasn't much API change in
> 7.1, I think we are OK.  Not sure if we should update them if there are
> no API changes, or were there?

IMHO, it should only be changed if there are incompatibilities between
releases ... we modify the API, mainly ... anything more then that, and
we're making ppl recompile to pull in libraries that only unlying code has
changed, but not the API ...



Wed, 9 May 2001 16:28:31 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Shared library versions
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
>> Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.

> I thought I did that long ago for 7.1, or I should have anyway.  I don't
> see the commits either.  Seems we can't do it in a minor release.

I agree, too late now.

Isn't there a checklist someplace of things to do while preparing a
release?  "Check shared library version numbers" should be on it...

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 09 May 2001 15:36:31 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Shared library versions 

What we should have done is ask which API's changed for 7.1.  I know I
just changed the libpq++ API for 7.2.


> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > > We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
> > > Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.
> >
> > I thought I did that long ago for 7.1, or I should have anyway.  I don't
> > see the commits either.  Seems we can't do it in a minor release.  Will
> > have to wait for 7.2, but since there really wasn't much API change in
> > 7.1, I think we are OK.  Not sure if we should update them if there are
> > no API changes, or were there?
> 
> IMHO, it should only be changed if there are incompatibilities between
> releases ... we modify the API, mainly ... anything more then that, and
> we're making ppl recompile to pull in libraries that only unlying code has
> changed, but not the API ...
> 
> 
> 

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 9 May 2001 15:36:40 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Shared library versions
The Hermit Hacker writes:

> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
> > Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.
>
> Ummm ... unless there are any changes that would require someone to
> recompile their apps between v7.1.1 and v7.1.2, I don't think so ... they
> we are just creating potential problems for those upgrading from
> v7.1/v7.1.1 to the latest stable, where there are no changes ...

I'm talking about the minor number.  The only thing that effects is that
executables would pick up the new version if they have the old one in the
path as well, no potential problems.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


Wed, 9 May 2001 21:36:57 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Shared library versions
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> We did not bump the shared library versions before the 7.1 release.
> >> Maybe we should do this before 7.1.2 goes out.
> 
> > I thought I did that long ago for 7.1, or I should have anyway.  I don't
> > see the commits either.  Seems we can't do it in a minor release.
> 
> I agree, too late now.
> 
> Isn't there a checklist someplace of things to do while preparing a
> release?  "Check shared library version numbers" should be on it...

Yep, it is there in tools/RELEASE_CHANGES:
	
	* Version numbers
	    configure.in
	    doc/src/sgml/version.sgml
	    bump interface version numbers
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	    update src/interfaces/libpq/libpq.rc
	    update /src/include/config.h.win32

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 9 May 2001 15:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Shared library versions
The Hermit Hacker writes:

> IMHO, it should only be changed if there are incompatibilities between
> releases ... we modify the API, mainly ... anything more then that, and
> we're making ppl recompile to pull in libraries that only unlying code has
> changed, but not the API ...

ISTM that you should read up on shared library versioning.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


Wed, 9 May 2001 21:55:08 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Shared library versions
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:

> The Hermit Hacker writes:
> 
> > IMHO, it should only be changed if there are incompatibilities between
> > releases ... we modify the API, mainly ... anything more then that, and
> > we're making ppl recompile to pull in libraries that only unlying code has
> > changed, but not the API ...
> 
> ISTM that you should read up on shared library versioning.

I second that... if new functionality is added, bump the minor. If
functionality changes or is removed, bump the major.

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrï¿½d
Red Hat, Inc.

09 May 2001 16:20:47 -0400
teg@redhat.com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
Re: Shared library versions
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> I'm talking about the minor number.  The only thing that effects is
> that executables would pick up the new version if they have the old
> one in the path as well, no potential problems.

Okay, but, what does that buy you?  One overwrites the old library, the
other creates one that will over-ride the old library ... either way, you
are using the new library, no?



Wed, 9 May 2001 20:20:41 -0300 (ADT)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Shared library versions
> On Wed, 9 May 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> > I'm talking about the minor number.  The only thing that effects is
> > that executables would pick up the new version if they have the old
> > one in the path as well, no potential problems.
> 
> Okay, but, what does that buy you?  One overwrites the old library, the
> other creates one that will over-ride the old library ... either way, you
> are using the new library, no?

What happens when some libpq is in one directory, and another in a
different directory, both in ld.so.conf.  Does it pick higher version of
all available versions?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 9 May 2001 20:05:59 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Shared library versions
Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > On Wed, 9 May 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > > I'm talking about the minor number.  The only thing that effects is
> > > that executables would pick up the new version if they have the old
> > > one in the path as well, no potential problems.
> >
> > Okay, but, what does that buy you?  One overwrites the old library, the
> > other creates one that will over-ride the old library ... either way, you
> > are using the new library, no?
>
> What happens when some libpq is in one directory, and another in a
> different directory, both in ld.so.conf.  Does it pick higher version of
> all available versions?

AFAIK it finds the first in order of directories listed in ld.so.conf.

>
>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
>   pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Fri, 11 May 2001 06:32:59 -0400
"Mark L. Woodward" <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Re: Shared library versions
The Hermit Hacker writes:

> Okay, but, what does that buy you?  One overwrites the old library, the
> other creates one that will over-ride the old library ... either way, you
> are using the new library, no?

Then we might as well get rid of the versions...

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


Sat, 12 May 2001 00:07:35 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Shared library versions
Bruce Momjian writes:

> What happens when some libpq is in one directory, and another in a
> different directory, both in ld.so.conf.  Does it pick higher version of
> all available versions?

It uses the highest one with the same major version.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter


Sat, 12 May 2001 00:08:43 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Shared library versions