Horton

Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>

View thread
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-04-02T09:31:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 7:47 PM Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
wrote:

>
> > On Mar 13, 2024, at 11:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com> writes:
> >>> On 3/13/24 11:21 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Agreed, we would probably add confusion not reduce it if we were to
> >>> change our longstanding nomenclature for this.
> >
> >> Before v10, the quarterly maintenance updates were unambiguously and
> >> always called patch releases
> >
> > I think that's highly revisionist history.  I've always called them
> > minor releases, and I don't recall other people using different
> > terminology.  I believe the leadoff text on
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
> >
> > is much older than when we switched from two-part major version
> > numbers to one-part major version numbers.
>
> Huh, that wasn’t what I expected. I only started (in depth) working with
> PG around 9.6 and I definitely thought of “6” as the minor version. This is
> an interesting mailing list thread.
>

That common misunderstanding was, in fact, one of the reasons to go to
two-part version numbers instead of 3. Because people did not realize that
the full 9.6 digit was the major version, and thus what was maintained and
such.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>