> On Jun 20, 2016, at 1:00 PM, David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Do you have a problem with the human form and machine forms of the version > > number being different in this respect? I don't - for me the decision of a > > choice for the human form is not influenced by the fact the machine form > > has 6 digits (with leading zeros which the human form elides...). > > I don't have a problem with it if humans always use a two part number. I > don't read > the number 100004 as being three parts, nor as being two parts, so it doesn't > matter. > What got me to respond this morning was Josh's comment: > > "Realistically, though, we're more likely to end up with 10.0.1 than 10.1." > > He didn't say "100001 than 10.1", he said "10.0.1 than 10.1", which showed > that we > already have a confusion waiting to happen. > > Now, you can try to avoid the confusion by saying that we'll always use all > three > digits of the number rather than just two, or always use two digits rather > than three. > But how do you enforce that? > > You do realize he was referring to machine generated output here?
No I don't, nor will anyone who finds that via a google search. That's my point. You core hackers feel perfectly comfortable with that because you understand what you are talking about. Hardly anybody else will. As you suggest, that's my $0.02, and I'm moving on. mark -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
