| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.2 features status |
| Date: | 2006-08-04 13:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 200608040904.13063.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 04 August 2006 02:20, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Seriously, PostgreSQL has the fastest release cycle of any RDBMS project in
> the world. The request I'm hearing from large production users is to
> release *less* often. So I don't find it a problem that this release has
> less "checklist" features than the last two did, and I don't think anyone
> else will.
>
Yes... one idea I have seen floated is that every other release should work
within the constraints of not requireing dump/reload, so that the really
nasty upgrade cycles could be spread out 2 years apart, but people could get
new features / imporvements each year if they wanted to. It sounds like a
good idea in theory, but would take some real world wrangling to achieve it.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-08-04 13:20:08 | Re: 8.2 features status |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-04 12:17:50 | Re: 8.2 features status |