Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date: 2003-11-20 05:32:08
Message-ID: 1419.1069306328@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Peter wrote:
>> Also note that most major number
>> changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because
>> the project has moved to a new phase.  I don't see any such move
>> happening.

> Now that is interesting.  I missed that.   Can you explain how that worked 
> with 7.0?

Personally I thought that the 6.5->7.0 jump was a mistake ... but that's
water over the dam now.

I would be willing to call a PG release 8.0 when it has built-in
replication support --- that would be the sort of major-league
functionality jump that would justify a top-number bump.

There are not that many other plausible reasons for a top-number bump
that I can think of right now.  PG is really getting to be a pretty
mature product, and ISTM that should be reflected in a disinclination
to call it "all new".

You can be dead certain that a Windows port will not be sufficient
reason to call it 8.0.  Perhaps 6.6.6 would the right starting version
number for that one ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-11-20 05:59:56
Subject: Re: PG7.4 ordering operator
Previous:From: William ZHANGDate: 2003-11-20 05:09:42
Subject: Re: 7.4: CHAR padding inconsistency

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-11-20 05:50:35
Subject: Re: 7.4 not yet covered on /.
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2003-11-20 04:16:51
Subject: Re: pg_ctl

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group