Re: [HACKERS] TODO list / why 7.0 ?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ?