Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)PostgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Date: 2016-03-22 14:10:46
Message-ID: 4A9AD4A1-81D7-4333-BAA4-FA8A671094DC@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On 22 Mar 2016, at 14:07, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been ranting about this on Twitter for a while, and now blogged about it:
>
> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/89-9.6,-or-10.0.html
>
> There are major changes in 9.6 (some of them are listed in the blog post), and
> I think they are good enough to call this 10.0.
>
> A counter argument might be waiting for pglogical for inclusion, but I think
> the current changes are enough to warrant a .0 release.
>
> What do you think?

Heh Heh Heh, I was thinking about this last night too.

For a 10.0 release, that's a very major jump from the 9.x series.

The question is... are we there yet?

Is so, then yay :)... if not though, what is the bar we need to reach?

eg Transparent multi-master replication built-in to core? ;)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

In response to

  • 9.6 -> 10.0 at 2016-03-22 14:07:42 from Devrim GÜNDÜZ

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2016-03-22 14:11:02 Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Previous Message Devrim GÜNDÜZ 2016-03-22 14:07:42 9.6 -> 10.0