Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, cbbrowne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, greg <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers
Date: 2011-04-21 15:29:27
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 04/21/2011 11:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I think to really address that problem, you need to think about shorter
>>> release cycles overall, like every 6 months. Otherwise, the current 12
>>> to 14 month horizon is just too long psychologically.
>> I agree. I am in favor of a shorter release cycle.
> I'm not. I don't think there is any demand among *users* (as opposed to
> developers) for more than one major PG release a year. It's hard enough
> to get people to migrate that often.

I agree.

> Another problem is that if you halve the release interval, you either
> double the amount of work spent on maintaining back branches, or halve
> the support lifetime of a branch. Neither of those is attractive.

I *really* *really* agree.



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2011-04-21 15:37:46 Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-04-21 15:24:04 "stored procedures"