Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Seems foreign key ability would be enough to justify a 6.6.

Even without foreign keys, we have enough bugfixes in place to justify
a 6.6 release, I think. If Jan can get some amount of foreign key
support working before Feb, that'd be a nice bonus --- but it's not
really necessary.

The way I see it, we should push what we have out the door, and then
settle in for a long slog on 7.0. We need to do WAL, querytree
redesign, long tuples, function manager changeover, date/time type
unification, and probably a couple other things that I don't remember
at this time of night. These are all appropriate for "7.0" because
they are big items and/or will involve some loss of backward
compatibility. Before we start in on that stuff, it'd be good to
consolidate the gains we already have. Almost every day I find myself
saying to someone "that's fixed in current sources". 7.0 is still
a long way away, so we ought to get the existing improvements out
to our users.

(In short, Bruce persuaded me: we ought to do a 6.6 cycle.)

regards, tom lane