| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |
| Date: | 2020-02-13 21:34:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAA8=A79pmjai1zFiYDvSm9uwT-4bX-At+ZrRQUxFpjDmDk+Kxw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:14 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> 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.
+1
I also object because 20 is *my* unlucky number ...
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-02-13 22:48:20 | Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-13 20:56:33 | Retiring pg_regress' --load-language option |