| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mid cycle release? |
| Date: | 2006-09-14 16:49:07 |
| Message-ID: | 45098803.7040501@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I know that this would be completely out of the norm. However, would it
>>> be worth considering having a mid cycle release for 8.3?
>>>
>>> Basically the release would focus on:
>>>
>>> Updateable views
>>> Bitmap indexes
>>> Recursive queries
>>>
>>> We would release in June?
>>
>> Interesting idea but we already have one of the fastest release cycles
>> of all database systems and some people would like to see a larger cycle.
>
> I really don't care about other database systems. I care about
> postgresql :). That is also why I wanted to limit the features set
> specifically.
hmm yeah but as I said - probably not everybody has an immediate demand
or is so fixated on those ..
>
>> In addition to that this plan might hold back some people from upgrading
>> to 8.2 which solves quite a few critical issues with features we
>> marketed/introduced during the past 8.x cycles and are really getting
>> polished and usable now (partitioning,pitr,...) and 8.2 gives quite a
>> nice performance boost for a lot of workloads too.
>>
>
> I frankly won't see many people migrate to 8.2. Most of my customers
> will wait for 8.3 anyway. (except new business of course).
I disagree - 8.2 is much more attractive for us then say 8.0 or 8.1 was
and we will probably adopt it rather aggressively ...
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-09-14 16:53:40 | Re: Mid cycle release? |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2006-09-14 16:41:58 | Re: Fixed length data types issue |