| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)PostgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-03-22 17:11:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20160322171104.GG11970@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 08:54:55AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> A counter argument might be waiting for pglogical for inclusion, but I think
> >> the current changes are enough to warrant a .0 release.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > I think a big question is whether we want to save 10.0 for some
> > incompatibility changes, though we didn't do that for 8.0 or 9.0.
>
> AFAIK, there are no such incompatibilities proposed for any major
> features. So it might be time to stop holding out for those.
I think there was talk of breaking pg_upgrade duringr an increase in the
first digit, but as you stated, there isn't any technical demand for
that.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2016-03-22 17:15:11 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-22 16:53:40 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |