On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:16:48AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On 5/16/16 9:53 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > >> I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the > >> wall with no version number and then the first five releases were > >> Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2, > >> Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth > >> major release counting those as the first five releases. > > > The last release out of Berkeley was 4.2. > > Correct --- I have a copy of that tarball. > > > Then Postgres95 was "5", and then PostgreSQL started at 6. > > I wasn't actually around at the time, but our commit history starts > with this: > > Author: Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org> > Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [d31084e9d] 1996-07-09 06:22:35 +0000 > > Postgres95 1.01 Distribution - Virgin Sources > > The first mention of 6.anything is here: > > Author: Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [a2b7f6297] 1996-12-28 02:01:58 +0000 > > Updated changes for 6.0. > > I see no references in the commit history to 5.anything, but there > are some references like this:
The sole reason we jumped from Postgres 1.09 to 6.0 was that in Postgres 1.0.X, $PGDATA/PG_VERSION contained '5', meaning when Berkeley went from University Postgres 4.2 to Postgres95 1.0, they didn't reset PG_VERSION. We really had no way of going to Postgres 2.0 unless we were prepared to have data/PG_VERSION never match the major version number. -- 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
