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

Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org,pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date: 2003-11-18 00:59:50
Message-ID: 3FB96F06.7000205@mascari.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers
Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>   If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
> appropriate.

It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its
feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature
equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That would mean:

1) PITR
2) Distributed Tx
3) Replication
4) Nested Tx
5) PL/SQL Exception Handling

IMHO, a major version number jump should at least match the delta in
features one finds in the commercial segment with their major version
number bumps. Otherwise, I suspect it would be viewed as window
dressing...

Could be wrong, though...

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com





In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2003-11-18 01:08:41
Subject: Re: Release cycle length
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-11-18 00:58:29
Subject: Re: Release now live ...

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-11-18 01:00:47
Subject: Re: advocacy.postgresql.org: page dedicated to price/licensing
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-11-18 00:58:29
Subject: Re: Release now live ...

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