Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
- To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
- Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:15:38 -0400
On Monday 23 April 2007 18:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > 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 Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- From: Magnus Hagander
- Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- References:
- Wild idea: 9.0?
- From: Josh Berkus
- Re: Wild idea: 9.0?
- From: usleepless
- Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- From: Alvaro Herrera
- Wild idea: 9.0?
- Prev by Date: Re: cost per transaction
- Next by Date: Re: cost per transaction
- Previous by thread: Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- Next by thread: Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0?
- Indexes: