Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/16/16 9:53 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> I thought the idea was that Berkeley tossed an source tree over the
>> wall with no version number and then the first five releases were
>> Postgres95 0.x, Postgres95 1.0, Postgres95 1.0.1, Postgres95 1.0.2,
>> Postgres95 1.0.9. Then the idea was that PostgreSQL 6.0 was the sixth
>> major release counting those as the first five releases.
> The last release out of Berkeley was 4.2.
Correct --- I have a copy of that tarball.
> Then Postgres95 was "5", and then PostgreSQL started at 6.
I wasn't actually around at the time, but our commit history starts
with this:
Author: Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org>
Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [d31084e9d] 1996-07-09 06:22:35 +0000
Postgres95 1.01 Distribution - Virgin Sources
The first mention of 6.anything is here:
Author: Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us>
Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [a2b7f6297] 1996-12-28 02:01:58 +0000
Updated changes for 6.0.
I see no references in the commit history to 5.anything, but there
are some references like this:
Author: Marc G. Fournier <scra...@hub.org>
Branch: master Release: REL6_1 [491b9b89c] 1996-08-26 20:38:52 +0000
The patch that is applied at the end of the email makes sure that these
conditions are always met. The patch can be applied to any version
of Postgres95 from 1.02 to 1.05. After applying the patch, queries
using indices on bpchar and varchar fields should (hopefully ;-) )
always return the same tuple set regardless to the fact whether
indices are used or not.
Submitted by: Gerhard Reithofer <tbr_...@aon.at>
So I think that the Postgres95 releases were retrospectively redefined as
being the "5.x" series, but no release was ever made with such a number.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
