On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> > wrote: >> Or we could adopt the very reasonable and practical policy of: >> >> The current versioning scheme isn't broke, so we aren't going to fix it. > > The idea that this discussion is not fixing any real > problem, though -- that rings true.
sure -- it's my fault for starting the conversation back up. I was wondering about supporting older version checks, but only because I was unaware of the 'machine' variant of the version check (server_version_num), which properly supports numerical ordering for historical versions. If there's anything to do here, maybe we ought to document that server_version_num should be used for checking version a little more strongly. Judging by google searching, this is as not widely known as it should be. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers