Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>

Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>, Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>

Date: 2024-04-02T20:46:58Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

upgrade.diff (text/x-diff) patch

On Tue, Apr  2, 2024 at 11:34:46AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:24 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>     A few small comments:
> 
>     +considers performing minor upgrades to be less risky than continuing to
>     +run superseded minor versions.</em>
> 
>     I think "superseded minor versions" could be unnecessarily complicated for
>     non-native speakers, I consider myself fairly used to reading english but
>     still
>     had to spend a few extra (brain)cycles parsing the meaning of it in this
>     context.
> 
>     + We recommend that users always run the latest minor release associated
> 
>     Or perhaps "current minor release" which is the term we use in the table
>     below
>     on the same page?
> 
> I do like the term "current"  better. It conveys (at least a bit) that we
> really consider all the older ones to be, well, obsolete. The difference
> "current vs obsolete" is stronger than "latest vs not quite latest".

Okay, I changed "superseded" to "old", and changed "latest" to
"current", patch attached.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.