On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are proposing changing the JDBC version from > 9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x > > We have two issues we are trying to address here. > > 1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been > somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue. > > 2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version. > Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it > is for server version 9.4 > > The driver is version agnostic for the most point so there is no reason to > tie it to a specific server version. > > I've already talked to the package managers and they see no problems. > > Please speak up now if you foresee any issues with this idea. > > FYI, 42 was more or less chosen at random. But it is large enough to avoid > any future conflicts with the server, and greater than 9 to avoid issues > with maven requesting things like > 9 > > > I'm guessing that wasn't actually intended for *pgadmin*-hackers? It does not and never have used JDBC :) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
