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