Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

From: Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Date: 2016-03-22 16:15:47
Message-ID: 56F16FB3.4040905@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On 03/22/2016 09:10 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> While having parallelism is awesome, it's only going to affect a
> (arguably small or big depending on your viewpoint) subset of users.
> It's going to be massive for those users, but it's not going to be
> useful for anywhere near as many users as streaming replication+hot
> standby+pg_upgrade in 9.0, or pitr+windows in 8.0. And yes, the vacuum
> freeze thing is also going to be great - for a small subset of users
> (yes, those users are in a lot of pain now).
>
>
> I had a discussion with Marko T just a couple of weeks back, and the
> conclusion then was that at the time, 9.6 had almost nothing that would
> even make the cut for a press release. We now have these two features,
> which are great features, but I'm not sure it's enough for such a big
> symbolical bump.

Wait, pglogical didn't make it?

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2016-03-22 16:18:02 Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2016-03-22 16:10:29 Re: 9.6 -> 10.0