Re: [GENERAL] Backward compatibility

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Igor Korot
Тема Re: [GENERAL] Backward compatibility
Дата
Msg-id CA+FnnTyOpM11pdrj=2GMaXq4dBSoH4H2OUBywcEVQRzdyJvOmQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [GENERAL] Backward compatibility  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [GENERAL] Backward compatibility
Список pgsql-general
Hi, guys,

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 11:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

MySQL uses this:
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/mysql-get-server-version.html.
Is it safe to assume that PostgreSQL calculates the version the same way?

Thank you.

>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general


В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Jordan Gigov
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] pg_restore misuse or bug?
Следующее
От: "David G. Johnston"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] Backward compatibility