Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Larry Rosenman" <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: "Andreas Joseph Krogh" <andreak(at)officenet(dot)no>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0
Date: 2010-01-22 00:22:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgadmin-hackers pgsql-hackers

"Larry Rosenman" <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, January 21, 2010 5:53 pm, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
>> Care to shed some light on what features (yes, we users care about
>> features) warrant this major version-bump? Is there a link somewhere?

> AFAIR, it was stated if Hot Standby AND Streaming Replication hit the
> tree, the release number would go to 9.0.

Yeah. The question of "when do we call it 9.0" has come up multiple
times over the past few release cycles, and "when we get built-in
replication" has always been one of the more popular answers. If HS+SR
aren't enough to justify a major version bump, I'm not sure what would be.

The other bit of rationale for this is that HS+SR are likely to induce a
certain amount of, um, instability. Labeling the release with a dot-oh
version number will help to set people's expectations about that. For
comparison's sake, one of the main reasons for calling 8.0 8.0 was the
native Windows port, and it certainly took a while for that to settle

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2010-01-22 01:38:33 Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2010-01-22 00:09:30 Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Takahiro Itagaki 2010-01-22 00:45:04 Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-22 00:14:12 Re: warn in plperl logs as... NOTICE??