Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>,
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>,
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-03-13T18:21:20Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> writes: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 1:12 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:21:27AM -0700, Jeremy Schneider wrote: >>> In my view, the best thing would be to move toward consistently using >>> the word "patch" and moving away from the word "minor" for the >>> PostgreSQL quarterly maintenance updates. >> I think "minor" is a better term since it contrasts with "major". We >> don't actually supply patches to upgrade minor versions. > I tend to agree with Bruce, and major/minor seems to be the more > common usage within the industry; iirc, debian, ubuntu, gnome, suse, > and mariadb all use that nomenclature; and ISTR some distro's who > release packaged versions of postgres with custom patches applied (ie > 12.4-2 for postgres 12.4 patchlevel 2). Agreed, we would probably add confusion not reduce it if we were to change our longstanding nomenclature for this. I'm +1 on rewriting these documentation pages though. Seems like they could do with a whole fresh start rather than just tweaks around the edges --- what we've got now is an accumulation of such tweaks. regards, tom lane