Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 22 March 2016 at 18:01, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 10:52 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's important to remember that PR strategy and engineering truth have
>>> only a passing acquaintance. While we don't want to promote vaporware,
>>> we do sometimes soft-pedal our own features to our project's detriment.
>>> In the current atomosphere of VC-funded hype, we'd do a bit better to
>>> trumpet our accomplishements early and often.
>>
>>
>> I see what you mean.
>>
>> The question must be asked: What feature *would* meet that "major
>> version bump" standard? If it's not extensive parallelism, then I
>> don't know what else it could be.
>
>
> BDR or PgLogical or Native Partitioning or Federation/Sharding.

The partitioning work is nice, but isn't that really just a way of
making partitioning easier? We already have partitioning. We never
had parallelism.

It could be argued we also have sharding with foreign table inheritance.

So really, it's BDR that's being argued as the reason for the big
jump, but then, what percentage of users will that be a big thing for?

I don't think any alternatives that anyone has put forward yet
constitutes compelling arguments for a major version bump.

Thom