[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: > Josh, List, > > On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane > >ordeal, > >and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways. Between major > >improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes > >to > >implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to > >more-or-less stick to deadlines ... > > > >... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3? I'm with Tom on this. I don't think we've changed much in the way of user visible behavior. > >Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a > >warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful. And that > >some of our more radical features in the new version could have some > >rough edges. > > as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should > really consider it. > > a bunch of problems due toa minor-release-number upgrade would come > as a suprise. That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme. 8.2 to 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts. See http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
