On 27 November 2016 at 11:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dave Cramer <davecra...@gmail.com> writes: > > We are proposing changing the JDBC version from > > 9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x > > > We have two issues we are trying to address here. > > > 1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has > been > > somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue. > > > 2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version. > > Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe > it > > is for server version 9.4 > > To clarify --- are you planning to advance the "42" part fairly often, > or is it intended to stay static? If the latter, I think this design > is shortsighted. Given current project policies, server version 42 > should come out in 2049, plus or minus a bit, and you'd be right back > with the is-this-meant-to-match-the-server-version problem. > > Admittedly, many of us won't be around in 2049, but it's not out of > the realm of possibility that the project would still be kicking. > > If you advance the major version part every year or so, it'd be OK > since you could expect to stay well ahead of the server's major > version number forever. >
Ya we could easily stay ahead of the server. Thanks, Dave Cramer
