RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes

Can I suggest that defined targets are set up for major releases (if they
aren't already). I don't think that major releases need to happen on a
regular cycle. That's for patch releases. Having three months or so's
worth of patches in a point release is useful, but I only want to upgrade
(as opposed to patch) a production environment when it's going to buy me a
well-defined set of new functions, e.g.: MVCC, unlimited row length, etc.,
etc. So if we don't have a major release for twelve or fourteen months, so
what. Besides, for anybody running a production environment, it could take
a couple of months worth of inhouse testing before they can make the move
anyway. When moving from Oracle 7.3 to 8.0, our system will go through 6-9
months worth of strenuous testing.

Are the releases currently time based, or function based, or a little bit of
both?

MikeA

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 4:09 PM
>> To: Ansley, Michael
>> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes
>>
>>
>> "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
>> > When is 6.6 being released?
>>
>> Schedule? You want a schedule???
>>
>> Seriously, I'd have to guess at least three months off.
>> Vadim wants to
>> do transaction logging, I've got a lot of half-baked
>> optimizer work to
>> finish, and I dunno what anyone else has up their sleeve.
>>
>> The goal used to be a major release every three months, but
>> we haven't
>> met that in some time. And, since it seems like we are now putting
>> out major releases in order to do significant upgrades and not just
>> incremental stability improvements, I kinda think that a slower cycle
>> (six-month intervals, say) might be a more useful goal at this stage.
>> Has the core group thought about this issue lately?
>>
>> regards, tom lane
>>