From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)webline(dot)dk> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list / why 7.0 ? |
Date: | 2000-02-21 22:21:15 |
Message-ID: | 29560.951171675@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kaare Rasmussen <kar(at)webline(dot)dk> writes:
> This is big, I admit but why going to 7.0 for this? Or is it because
> it's long overdue (MSVC and stuff)?
A number of people thought 6.5 should have been called 7.0 because of
MVCC. A number of other people thought that this release should be 6.6,
and the next one (which should have outer joins and much better VIEWs
thanks to a redesigned querytree representation) should be 7.0.
I think it's kind of a compromise ;-).
OTOH, if you look less at bullet points on a feature list and more at
reliability and quality of implementation, there's plenty of material
to argue that this indeed deserves to be 7.0. I think we have made
a quantum jump in our ability to understand and improve the Berkeley
code over the past year --- at least I have, maybe I shouldn't speak
for the other developers. There have been some pretty significant
improvements under-the-hood, and I think those are going to translate
directly into a more reliable system.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-02-21 23:57:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level? |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-02-21 20:40:59 | Re: [HACKERS] TODO list / why 7.0 ? |