Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 10:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> <shrug> ... The backend will still talk to old clients, and libpq will
>> still talk to old backends, so I don't think the protocol change is
>> really going to cause a flag day for anyone. On a technical level it's
>> probably not an adequate reason to call this release 8.0.
> Can you give me an example of a technical change that would warrant a
> major version bump?
Well, if we hadn't gotten the work done to make libpq still able to talk
to older backends, then we'd have had enough of a compatibility issue
that I think calling it 8.0 would have been a reasonable thing to do.
If you want a feature-with-a-capital-F reason for going to 8.0, there is
only one candidate Feature in my personal view, and that's a built-in
replication solution. That doesn't seem to be getting any nearer :-(
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
