Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you do bump then it means you can keep both copies of the library > installed.
I looked back into the archives and found that both of our recent libpq major version bumps were due to unintentional ABI breaks, in the form of removing not-officially-exported functions that were actually being depended on by our other client-side code: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-02/msg00059.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-04/msg00240.php After the second one of those we finally put in exports.txt filtering, and I think we can be reasonably confident that it won't happen again *on platforms where the export filtering works*. If we're willing to assume that those are the only platforms where concurrent installation of different versions is well-supported, then we can probably get away without a major version bump now. The case that most people care about is being able to update libpq without recompiling dependent applications, and just adding new export symbols shouldn't be an issue for that. Although I was worried about packagers being unhappy about two releases with the same soname, I cannot find any evidence in the archives that we have ever bumped the major number without an ABI-break reason. (The previous two bumps were for intentional API changes, btw.) So personally I withdraw my concern about this --- the existing "5.1" numbering should be OK. It's a sore spot because we have blown it three times running on not bumping the major number when there was a need to, but now we have some defense against being blindsided the way we were the last two times; and the time before was just plain failure to consider whether we needed to bump the major version: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2002-12/msg00213.php regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate