> On 13 May 2016, at 17:24, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: >> > >> > Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have >> > already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. >> >> I suspect that won't be an issue (I never heard of it being for 7.5, >> which was released as 8.0 - but is smattered all over pgAdmin 3 for >> example) - largely because in such apps we're almost always checking >> for a version greater than or less than x.y. >> >> I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written >> assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit. > > If they are, they are already broken by design. But more to the point, unless > you're arguing for *never* changing to 10.0, that's not really something that > should decide when we do it, because they will break. > > We have provided multiple ways to check this. For example, we've had > PQserverVersion() since forever which returns an integer that you can just > compare. We have never claimed that it would be single digit in any of the > fields (first, second *or* third). I honestly don't care at all if those > applications break. > > (We would, however, have a problem to go above 100 in all fields *except* the > first one, since the integer uses a two-digit representation for each)
Oh, I don't care about such code. Just opining that it's a likely issue somewhere - and if so, it should be up to users to fix their apps.
