On 3/12/24 3:56 AM, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> but that is far down the page. Do we need to improve this?
>
>> I liked the statement from Laurenz a while ago on his blog
>> (paraphrased): "Upgrading to the latest patch release does not require
>> application testing or recertification". I am not sure we want to put
>> that into the official page (or maybe tone down/qualify it a bit), but I
>> think a lot of users stay on older minor versions because they dread
>> their internal testing policies.
>
> I think we need a more conservative language since a minor release might fix a
> planner bug that someone's app relied on and their plans will be worse after
> upgrading. While rare, it can for sure happen so the official wording should
> probably avoid such bold claims.
>
>> The other thing that could maybe be made a bit better is the fantastic
>> patch release schedule, which however is buried in the "developer
>> roadmap". I can see how this was useful years ago, but I think this page
>> should be moved to the end-user part of the website, and maybe (also)
>> integrated into the support/versioning page?
>
> Fair point.
Both of the above points show inconsistency in how PG uses the terms
"minor" and "patch" today.
It's not just roadmaps and release pages where we mix up these terms
either, it's even in user-facing SQL and libpq routines: both
PQserverVersion and current_setting('server_version_num') return the
patch release version in the numeric patch field, rather than the
numeric minor field (which is always 0).
In my view, the best thing would be to move toward consistently using
the word "patch" and moving away from the word "minor" for the
PostgreSQL quarterly maintenance updates.
-Jeremy
--
http://about.me/jeremy_schneider