Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C20D9FB859;
	Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:45:08 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 25122-04-7; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:45:03 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4BD9FB719;
	Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:42:12 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l3AEg88f025897;
	Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:42:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
cc: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	Andrew Hammond <andrew.george.hammond@gmail.com>,
	CAJ CAJ <pguser@gmail.com>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] programmatic way to fetch latest release for a
	given major.minor version
In-reply-to: <20070410142535.GB7786@alvh.no-ip.org> 
References: <20070410081558.GB24976@svr2.hagander.net>
	<461B5064.8010004@postgresql.org>
	<20070410101852.GC24976@svr2.hagander.net>
	<461B6F10.3040800@postgresql.org>
	<20070410111509.GF24976@svr2.hagander.net>
	<461B768A.8070402@postgresql.org>
	<20070410122708.GB25739@svr2.hagander.net>
	<461B8D60.6080004@postgresql.org>
	<20070410135708.GA7786@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<461B9B4F.4070208@postgresql.org>
	<20070410142535.GB7786@alvh.no-ip.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
	message dated "Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:25:35 -0400"
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:42:07 -0400
Message-ID: <25896.1176216127@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200704/32
X-Sequence-Number: 11782

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> It makes sense to store things separately when they have a semantic
> difference.  What we call "major" is the first two digits and dot.  We
> call "minor" to the third digit, and that's all.  We don't have
> "revisions".  This is how it has ever been and we even document it as
> such.  Offering the first two digits separately would be a mistake
> because it causes confusion over what's significant -- the first digit
> by itself is not significant.

While I agree with this position, ISTM that an easy compromise is
available: put both formats into the data.

			regards, tom lane