| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |
| Date: | 2020-06-01 19:20:21 |
| Message-ID: | 424595.1591039221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> As has already been pointed out, it could definitely happen, but we
> could solve that by just using a longer version number, say, including
> the month and, in case we ever do multiple major releases in the same
> month, also the day. In fact, we might as well take it one step
> further and use the same format for the release number that we use for
> CATALOG_VERSION_NO: YYYYMMDDN. So this fall, piggybacking on the
> success of PostgreSQL 10, 11, and 12, we could look then release
> PostgreSQL 202009241 or so.
But then where do you put the minor number for maintenance releases?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2020-06-01 21:42:51 | Re: Speeding up parts of the planner using a binary search tree structure for nodes |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-01 19:11:04 | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |