Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Joshua D. Drake (j...@commandprompt.com) wrote: >> On 08/07/2014 10:12 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> If you want the specific version, update your deb line. Don't complain >>> because you used the Debian repo that follows the Debian guidelines and >>> didn't like what you got- that's not going to change.
>> May I have a link? Because I would argue that the "latest" version >> of the library for 9.2, is the library that ships with 9.2.9, not >> the one that ships with 9.3.5. > Really? The latest version of libpq SO version 5 that we ship is 9.2.9? > I certainly don't feel that way. > Next you'll be asking us to bump the major SO for every major release of > PG. > Note that the last time we changed the SO major version was back in 2006 > and that was primairly because we were removing symbols that people > weren't supposed to be using anyway. Prior to that, it was 2005, or the > 8.0/8.1 timeframe... We only bump the SO version when we make a low-level ABI break; but even without doing that we could potentially have changed library behavior in ways that could negatively impact some applications. So I think there's some merit in Josh's position: he doesn't want to have to re-QA his applications against some new version of libpq, but if you force him to move to 9.3 libpq, he's going to need to do that if he wants to be strict about it. If the Debian guidelines think that only SO major version need be considered, they're wrong, at least for the way we've been treating that. At the same time, there would be more merit in Josh's position if he could point to any *actual* libpq changes that might pose application compatibility problems. I don't recall that we've made many such, so the above argument might just be hypothetical. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers