Re: 10.0
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>,
Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2016-05-16T14:01:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 5/16/16 9:53 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> If that were the standard, we'd never have bumped the major version at >> all, and would still be on 4.something (or whatever Berkeley was using >> when they tossed it over the wall; I'm not too clear on whether there was >> ever a 5.x release). > > I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the > wall with no version number and then the first five releases were > Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2, > Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth > major release counting those as the first five releases. The last release out of Berkeley was 4.2. Then Postgres95 was "5", and then PostgreSQL started at 6. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services