From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
Date: | 2013-05-27 05:01:20 |
Message-ID: | 51A2E8A0.4010708@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/25/2013 05:39 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> 2. Name the next release after that 10.0 (would have been 9.5). We
> declare now that
> a) 10.0 will support on-line upgrade from 9.4 (only)
> b) various major incompatibilities will be introduced in 10.0 - the
> change in release number will indicate to everybody that is the case
> c) agree that there will be no pg_upgrade patch from 9.4 to 10.0, so
> that we will not be constrained by that
While we're talking about changing things, what about:
- Switching to single-major-version release numbering. The number of
people who say "PostgreSQL 9.x" is amazing; even *packagers* get this
wrong and produce "postgresql-9" packages. Witness Amazon Linux's awful
PostgreSQL packages for example. Going to PostgreSQL 10.0, 11.0, 12.0,
etc with a typical major/minor scheme might be worth considering.
- s/cluster/server/g . Just because "cluster" is historical usage
doesn't make it any less confusing for users.
*dives for asbestos fire suit*
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2013-05-27 05:15:51 | Re: shmem startup and shutdown hooks |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2013-05-27 04:48:25 | Re: Processing long AND/OR lists |