| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-18 01:00:47 | Re: advocacy.postgresql.org: page dedicated to price/licensing |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-18 00:58:29 | Re: Release now live ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-18 01:08:41 | Re: Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-18 00:58:29 | Re: Release now live ... |