Re: [GENERAL] Backward compatibility

John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com> writes:
> On 7/20/2017 8:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, we need to update that text for the new 2-part version numbering
>> scheme, don't we?

> will 10 return like 100100 if its 10.1, or 100001 ?

The latter.  The two middle digits will be zeroes henceforth, unless
we somehow get into a situation where the minor version needs to
exceed 99.

            regards, tom lane