Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, marcelo zen <mzen(at)itapua(dot)com(dot)uy>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Date: 2020-02-12 21:10:29
Message-ID: 20200212211029.GR24870@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again. But
> > my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
> > pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
> > any stone tablets. So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
> > that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.
> >
> >
> We could you use YYYY as version identifier, so people will not expect
> correlative numbering. SQL Server is being released every couple of years
> and they are using this naming shema. The problem would be releasing twice
> the same year, but how likely would that be?

We've released more than one major version in a year before, so we
have a track record of that actually happening.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ray O'Donnell 2020-02-12 21:26:17 Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-02-12 20:44:40 Re: Collation versioning