Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> 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.

Wait, now I'm confused...so between 6.6 and 7, we're talking another year
anyway? *raised eyebrow* Just curious about your 'long slog' above :)

Here's a question...should we beta on Feb 1st but make it 7.0? If we are
going to be looking for a "long slog" for 7, why not "freeze" things on
Feb 1st as v7, and start working on v8 with WAL, long tuples, etc, etc...

Like, what point do we call things a major release? In a sense, MVCC
probably should have been considered a large enough overhaul to warrant
7.0, no?

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org