Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

From: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: postgresql advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date: 2004-06-05 20:11:02
Message-ID: 40C228D6.6060007@zara.6.isreserved.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Dave Page wrote:
> From: David Garamond
> Sent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AM
> Cc: postgresql advocacy; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
> Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
> then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to
> 8.0 now, then we have up until 2023.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I might be missing the point, but why can't we go to double figures? MS
> Office has, HP-UX has, OS-X, Norton AV has, Madrake Linux has...

Of course we can, I didn't say we can't. But double digits are sometimes
undesirable because it can break some things. For example, a simple
shell or Perl script might try to compare the version of two data
directories by comparing the content of PG_VERSION stringwise. It then
concludes that 7.10 is smaller than 7.4.

Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
(like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
have double digits in version number component than people might think
the same too and thus the habit of stringwise version comparison continues.

--
dave

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-06-05 20:43:39 Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Previous Message Carlos Eduardo Smanioto 2004-06-05 18:55:32 [OFF-TOPIC] - Known maximum size of the PostgreSQL Database

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sailesh Krishnamurthy 2004-06-05 20:15:25 Re: Why hash indexes suck
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-06-05 20:03:39 Why hash indexes suck