| From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 18:28:12 |
| Message-ID: | 57361CBC.8030307@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05/13/2016 09:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> More generally, rebranding after beta1 sends a very public signal that
> we're a bunch of losers who couldn't make up our minds in a timely
> fashion. We should have discussed this last month; now I think we're
> stuck with a decision by default.
Although maybe we could use some controversy to get us back in the press ;-)
Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will
take to make the next version 10.0? Here's my thinking:
1. pglogical is accepted into core, with docs/scripts to make it a hot
upgrade option.
2. parallel continues to make progress
My argument is that even if we get nothing else, the above two are
enough to "bump" it to 10.0. And if we can have argreement on that now,
then we can avoid a month-long argument about version numbers next year.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-05-13 18:31:37 | Re: 10.0 |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2016-05-13 18:02:37 | Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers |