> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:00 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you have a problem with the human form and machine forms of the version 
> > number being different in this respect?  I don't - for me the decision of a 
> > choice for the human form is not influenced by the fact the machine form 
> > has 6 digits (with leading zeros which the human form elides...).
> I don't have a problem with it if humans always use a two part number.  I 
> don't read
> the number 100004 as being three parts, nor as being two parts, so it doesn't 
> matter.
> What got me to respond this morning was Josh's comment:
> "Realistically, though, we're more likely to end up with 10.0.1 than 10.1."
> He didn't say "100001 than 10.1", he said "10.0.1 than 10.1", which showed 
> that we
> already have a confusion waiting to happen.
> Now, you can try to avoid the confusion by saying that we'll always use all 
> three
> digits of the number rather than just two, or always use two digits rather 
> than three.
> But how do you enforce that? 
> ​You do realize he was referring to machine generated output here?  

No I don't, nor will anyone who finds that via a google search.  That's my 
You core hackers feel perfectly comfortable with that because you understand
what you are talking about.  Hardly anybody else will.

As you suggest, that's my $0.02, and I'm moving on.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to