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:

Reply via email to