On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 07/12/2009 14:03, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
>> If it is, then perhaps it might be better to say "PgAdmin
>> 1.10 or later" to avoid potential confusion.
>
> Whoops - meant to say "...1.9 or later..." - sorry.
Actually it's 1.10.x, a
On 07/12/2009 14:03, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> If it is, then perhaps it might be better to say "PgAdmin
> 1.10 or later" to avoid potential confusion.
Whoops - meant to say "...1.9 or later..." - sorry.
Ray.
--
Raymond O'Donnell :: Galway :: Ireland
r...@iol.ie
--
Sent via pgadmin-suppo
Hi all,
First of all, congratulations on getting 1.10.1 out the door!
One think I noticed, when running the "upgrade" batch file on Windows -
the pre-upgrade message output by the batch file states that you must
have pgAdmin 1.9 installed in order to follow the upgrade path.
Is this accurate? If
