"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 18:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How large N will be in practice remains to be seen, of course, but I'd
>> expect something on the order of 4 or 5.
> Ok, this is what I was looking for. If we are serious about this, would
> it make sense to start a new policy of bumping the major version number
> every time an upgrade requires a dump / reload?
That was discussed already. I think it's purely a cosmetic issue, but
have no objection to doing it that way...
regards, tom lane