Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)?

From: Philip Alger <paalger0(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)?
Date: 2026-05-24 17:31:55
Message-ID: CAPXBC8LibVcuxiLoo_c2DLTmNh3sN0soyyGgRcdeKX8Zdpd5qw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > On 22.05.26 08:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't like either version of this proposal, because I fear it
> >> puts way too much faith in our ability to adhere to a fixed release
> >> calendar. What happens if "v2027" slips into 2028? Are we then
> >> unable to resume the normal schedule for the following release?
>

> A different angle came up in the AI-focused unconference session at
> PGConf.dev: somebody speculated that use of AI might accelerate our
> development cycle to the point where it'd be sensible to have two
> major releases per year.
>

Not only these points, but if a release occurs in December, the version
will seem outdated once the new year arrives in ~31 days. Users or
enterprises will feel compelled, or pressured, to upgrade because the name
will appear ancient to their clients if they are using v2025, for example.
-1 on using the year.

--
Best,
Phil Alger
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mats Kindahl 2026-05-24 18:30:17 Re: pg_rewind does not rewind diverging timelines
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-05-24 17:03:59 Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)?