Обсуждение: RFC Changing the version number for JDBC
We are proposing changing the JDBC version from
9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x
We have two issues we are trying to address here.
1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue.
2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version. Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it is for server version 9.4
The driver is version agnostic for the most point so there is no reason to tie it to a specific server version.
I've already talked to the package managers and they see no problems.
Please speak up now if you foresee any issues with this idea.
FYI, 42 was more or less chosen at random. But it is large enough to avoid any future conflicts with the server, and greater than 9 to avoid issues with maven requesting things like > 9
Dave Cramer
Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> writes:
> We are proposing changing the JDBC version from
> 9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x
> We have two issues we are trying to address here.
> 1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been
> somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue.
> 2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version.
> Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it
> is for server version 9.4
To clarify --- are you planning to advance the "42" part fairly often,
or is it intended to stay static? If the latter, I think this design
is shortsighted. Given current project policies, server version 42
should come out in 2049, plus or minus a bit, and you'd be right back
with the is-this-meant-to-match-the-server-version problem.
Admittedly, many of us won't be around in 2049, but it's not out of
the realm of possibility that the project would still be kicking.
If you advance the major version part every year or so, it'd be OK
since you could expect to stay well ahead of the server's major
version number forever.
regards, tom lane
On 27 November 2016 at 11:29, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> writes:
> We are proposing changing the JDBC version from
> 9.4.xxxx to 42.x.x
> We have two issues we are trying to address here.
> 1) we do not want to be tied to the server release schedule. This has been
> somewhat addressed already but has left us with the second issue.
> 2) Avoid confusion as to which version to use with which server version.
> Currently the naming scheme has 9.4 in it which leads people to believe it
> is for server version 9.4
To clarify --- are you planning to advance the "42" part fairly often,
or is it intended to stay static? If the latter, I think this design
is shortsighted. Given current project policies, server version 42
should come out in 2049, plus or minus a bit, and you'd be right back
with the is-this-meant-to-match-the-server-version problem.
Admittedly, many of us won't be around in 2049, but it's not out of
the realm of possibility that the project would still be kicking.
If you advance the major version part every year or so, it'd be OK
since you could expect to stay well ahead of the server's major
version number forever.
Ya we could easily stay ahead of the server.
Thanks,
Dave Cramer