+1 for going with 10.0 after 9.6 and 11.0 afterwards, etc.
It will hopefully both end these discussions and remove the confusion the current versioning scheme has (I too heard way to many times about people using postgres8 or postgres9).
For those saying this is version inflation. I don't see the problem, we are project with long history, which releases major version every year, I don't see why version number shouldn't reflect that.
About changing first digit only when we break compatibility with applications for example by removing money type. We do have app breaking incompatibilities in almost every major version so in effect we'd have to bump the first digit every time anyway if we went with that schema (I still remember working on db that was kept on 8.3 till EOL just because we changes hashtext implementation, or db which was kept back because of removal plgpsql rename clause where nobody wanted to rewrite couple thousand function which used it and there are many examples like that).
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
