Re: 10.0

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 05:36:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>> I mean we haven't yet actually identified a problem we are trying to
>>> solve have we?

>> The problem I'd like to solve is not having to have this type of
>> discussion again in future years ...

> If pg_logical and/or more parallelism are in 9.7, there will be no need
> for a discussion, just like 8.0 and 9.0 decisions.

If you're framing the problem as "how to decide whether next year is 9.7
or 10.0", you're not thinking very far ahead. If we just leave the
process at status quo, we'll be having the exact same type of discussion
not later than about 10.3, because that's about how long it took for
people to start asking about 9.0:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200704231224.15429.josh@agliodbs.com
or 10.0:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/512E8EF8.3000507@agliodbs.com

(I'm not trying to pick on Josh here, those were just the first hits
I found while scanning the -advocacy archives.)

I agree with the opinion that we waste an inordinate amount of effort
on this type of discussion, and have been doing so for a couple of
decades now. I'd like a permanent fix for that.

regards, tom lane