Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

On 05/28/2013 06:13 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> On 05/27/2013 06:53 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> On 05/28/2013 09:39 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>>> Yes, I hate the Firefox style number inflation.
>> I was arguing *for* it ;-)
>>
>> I don't like it much either, but (a) we do about one release a year, not
>> one every few weeks and (b) it's very clear from a quick look at Stack
>> Overflow or first-posts to pgsql-general how confusing two-part major
>> versions are to users. If it's a bit less aesthetically pleasing I'm OK
>> with that.
>>
>
> This argument comes up every couple of years and the people that
> are trying to solve the problem by changing the versioning are
> ignoring the fact that there is no problem to solve.
>
> Consider the following exchange:
>
> Client: I have X problem with PostgreSQL
> CMD: What version?
> Client: 9
> CMD: Which version of 9?
> Client: 9.0.2
> CMD: You should be running 9.2.4 or at least 9.0.13
If the problem has the "at least" part, then the first part is superfluous.

If somebody wants to figure out how to run streaming CTE-s on
"postgresql 8" then you need to ask
for exact "major version which is two first digits" if they want to run
streaming replication there you
can skip on e-mail exchange and tell right away that SR was added in
version 9.0

> ...
>
> The conversation does not change.
>
> Further, we are not Firefox. We are not user software. We are
> developer software.
At least some of the real-world problems with PostgreSQL
comes from "We are developer software" mentality.

Yes, We are developer software, but we are also a
DBA/maintainer/infrastructure manager
software which needs to live a long time after the "development" is
finished.

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic OÜ