On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:34:34PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > >> > >> Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which > >> have already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. > > > > I suspect that won't be an issue (I never heard of it being for > > 7.5, which was released as 8.0 - but is smattered all over pgAdmin > > 3 for example) - largely because in such apps we're almost always > > checking for a version greater than or less than x.y. > > > > 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. > > Is that likely? That would be remarkably myopic, but I guess > possible.
You might be astonished at the ubiquity of myopia out in the world. That's not an argument against 10.0, by the way. Myopia of that type tends to come with software quality so low that your best bet is never to start using it, and your second-best is to eliminate it from your system at high priority. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers