Mailing List Archive

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Anyone object if I increase the required minimum version of PostgreSQL to 8.1
> for 1.11.2 (2.0 when it drops)?
>
> I'd actually like to require 8.2, but that might be too new for some folks, I
> realize…

For what purpose?
(Though we happen to have 8.2.)

On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Scott Lanning wrote:

>> I'd actually like to require 8.2, but that might be too new for
>> some folks, I realize…
>
> For what purpose?
> (Though we happen to have 8.2.)

Because we've strongly preferred 8.1 for years now, because 7.x is
pretty much a dog by today's standards, and because I'm tired of
tweaking my SQL for 8.0 and earlier.

Best,

David

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Scott Lanning wrote:
>>> I'd actually like to require 8.2, but that might be too new for some
>>> folks, I realize…
>>
>> For what purpose?
>> (Though we happen to have 8.2.)
>
> Because we've strongly preferred 8.1 for years now, because 7.x is pretty
> much a dog by today's standards, and because I'm tired of tweaking my SQL for
> 8.0 and earlier.

But we support MySQL now, so doesn't the SQL have to be
pretty lowest common denominator?

On Mar 11, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Scott Lanning wrote:

>> Because we've strongly preferred 8.1 for years now, because 7.x is
>> pretty much a dog by today's standards, and because I'm tired of
>> tweaking my SQL for 8.0 and earlier.
>
> But we support MySQL now, so doesn't the SQL have to be
> pretty lowest common denominator?

Shhh! I'm trying to ignore MySQL! La-la-la-la-la! I KANT HEER U!