On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> In this particular example, it's bad form because it's even possible that >>> 8.5 will actually be 9.0. You don't want to refer to a version number that >>> doesn't even exist for sure yet, lest it leave a loose end that needs to be >>> cleaned up later if that number is changed before release. > >> Ah, yes, I like "In 8.4 and earlier versions", or maybe "earlier >> releases". Compare: > > Please do *not* resort to awkward constructions just to avoid one > mention of the current version number. If we did decide to call the > next version 9.0, the search-and-replace effort involved is not going > to be measurably affected by any one usage. There are plenty already. > > (I did the work when we decided to call 7.5 8.0, so I know whereof > I speak.)
I agree that search and replace isn't that hard, but I don't find the proposed construction awkward, and we have various uses of it in the docs already. Actually the COPY one is not quite clear whether it means <= 7.3 or < 7.3. I think we're just aiming for consistency here as much as anything. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
