Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/22/2016 10:52 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
> With a couple more of the "big but not 10.0-on-their-own" that are
> currently in the CF I think it should be a 10.0. To answer Roberts question
> before, specifically if we get things like multivariate statistics, casual
> reads, multiple sync standbys, snapshot too old, relation extend
> scalability and maybe unique joins, I definitely say we have that. And not
> all of them, pick two or three of those and I think we have a 10.0. (oh,
> and of course the updated backup APIs :P must have those! :P)
>

So to be fair with input. I listed 6 things there. We got 3.5 of those, and
a bunch of others.

Which removes most of my initial argument against bumping the version
number.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/