On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:53 AM, Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > This is not a plea for keeping the three part versioning system. It's > just > > a plea not to have a 2 part versioning system masquerading as a three > > part versioning system, or vice versa. > > To clarify my concern, I never want to have to write code like this: > > CASE WHEN pg_version eq '11.1' OR pg_version eq '11.0.1' THEN foo() > WHEN pg_version eq '11.2' OR pg_version eq '11.0.2' > THEN bar() > .... > or > > if (0 == strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.1") || 0 == > strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.0.1")) > foo(); > else if (0 == strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.2") || 0 == > strcmp(pg_version_string, "11.0.2")) > bar(); > > either in sql, perl, c, java, or anywhere else. As soon as you have two > different > formats for the version string, you get into this hell. Yeah, ok, you may > have > a sql level function for this, but I'm thinking about applications > somewhat removed > from a direct connection to the database, where you can't be sure which > format > you'll be handed. > Now you argue for keeping the middle number on pure compatibility grounds... The correct format is: 110001 and 110002 Which pretty much boils down to "we're keeping the middle number but it will always be zero". So, I'll suppose you are giving a +1 to keeping the human-readable display 10.0.x - and will let other's interpret your reasons as they will. David J.
