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:

Reply via email to