On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote: > > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written > > assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit. > > Let's just go with 2016 instead then. > > At least then users would see how old the version they're running is (I > was just recently dealing with a 8.4 user...).
We tried, that, "Postgres95". ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
