| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, marcelo zen <mzen(at)itapua(dot)com(dot)uy>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |
| Date: | 2020-02-13 03:44:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20200213034448.GE1520@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:46:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again. But
> my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
> pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
> any stone tablets. So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
> that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.
Yeah, it is good to keep some flexibility here, so my take is that
there is little advantage in changing again the version numbering.
Note that any change like that induces an extra cost for anybody
maintaining builds of Postgres or any upgrade logic where the decision
depends on the version number of the origin build and the target
build.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-13 03:52:31 | Re: Bug in pg_restore with EventTrigger in parallel mode |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-13 03:40:59 | Re: Unicode normalization SQL functions |