On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:42:57AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:br...@momjian.us]
> > We have this text in src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES:
> > ...
> > This is saying running against a mismatched minor version should be fine
> > for a binary.
>
> Thanks for a good rationale.
>
>
> > I know this thread is old but it bounced around a lot of ideas. I think
> > there are some open questions:
> >
> > * Will a new application link against an older minor-version libpq?
> > * Will an old application link against a newer minor-version libpq?
>
> The former does not always hold true, if the application uses a new libpq
> function which is not in an old miner-version. But I think the
> backward-compatibility is enough.
Yes, I think that is correct, and I think that is covered in the file
posted:
Adding a new function should NOT force an increase in the major version
number.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
