Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:12:01 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Jeremy Schneider <schneider@ardentperf.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Reports on obsolete Postgres versions
Message-ID: <ZfHeYR589ZciKKjP@momjian.us>
References: <Ze9rnSQ4jAOpvF7k@momjian.us>
 <20240311211204.GA1786481@nathanxps13>
 <Ze902XsAC85dizNP@momjian.us>
 <65f02a88.170a0220.805a4.01ff@mx.google.com>
 <D581A853-47E3-4948-95D2-3124E96844FC@yesql.se>
 <bd12b861-982f-44dd-bd8a-d8b29e08e7d6@ardentperf.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bd12b861-982f-44dd-bd8a-d8b29e08e7d6@ardentperf.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZfHeYR589ZciKKjP%40momjian.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 09:21:27AM -0700, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> 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.
> 

I think "minor" is a better term since it contrasts with "major".  We
don't actually supply patches to upgrade minor versions.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.