| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-03-22 18:20:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20160322182050.GA484357@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The question must be asked: What feature *would* meet that "major
> version bump" standard? If it's not extensive parallelism, then I
> don't know what else it could be.
Somebody mentioned partitioning.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2016-03-22 18:33:50 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Josh berkus | 2016-03-22 18:03:25 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |