On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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". ;-)
Awesome: Postgres16 > Postgres95. That won't be confusing now will it? :-) -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
