On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
Josh, List,
On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hackers,
I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal,
and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major
improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
Josh, List,
On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane
ordeal,
and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major
improvements to performance, major changes to
On Monday 23 April 2007 18:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
--
Robert
That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to
8.3 is considered major in these parts. See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't
