

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 3:07 PM
To: The Hermit Hacker
Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Bruce Momjian; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release 

Yeah, I was thinking that if we were to call this 7.0 and have plans
for going to 8.0 as soon as WAL &etc are done, then we'd basically be
dropping one level of version number --- no need for a third number
if major revs are that close together.  That's OK with me as long as
we all understand that it's a change in naming practices.  There are
things we'd need to change to make it work.  For example, PG_VERSION
would need to record only the top version number: 7.0 and 7.1 would be
expected to have compatible databases, not incompatible ones.

PM: Actually, JDBC only has room for a single Major/Minor pair in it's
api, so it could actually help by having differing version numbers
between releases (JDBC wise).

Peter

-- 
Peter Mount
Enterprise Support
Maidstone Borough Council
Any views stated are my own, and not those of Maidstone Borough Council.


Fri, 10 Dec 1999 15:19:33 -0000
Peter Mount <petermount@it.maidstone.gov.uk>
RE: [HACKERS] 6.6 release 