Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

From: Christoph Haller <ch(at)rodos(dot)fzk(dot)de>
To: mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com (Mike Mascari)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date: 2003-11-18 10:20:41
Message-ID: 200311180920.KAA03562@rodos
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
> > appropriate.
>
> It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its
> feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature
> equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That would mean:
>
> 1) PITR
> 2) Distributed Tx
> 3) Replication
> 4) Nested Tx
> 5) PL/SQL Exception Handling
>
> IMHO, a major version number jump should at least match the delta in
> features one finds in the commercial segment with their major version
> number bumps. Otherwise, I suspect it would be viewed as window
> dressing...
Good point. To me the best argument against so far.
>
> Could be wrong, though...
>
> Mike Mascari
> mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com
>
>
Regards, Christoph

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jussi Mikkola 2003-11-18 10:25:31 Year of the Open-Source Database
Previous Message Dave Page 2003-11-18 09:45:56 Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sean Chittenden 2003-11-18 10:41:01 Re: Release cycle length
Previous Message William ZHANG 2003-11-18 10:03:27 What's the difference between int2 and int16?