Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Devrim Gunduz wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been ranting about this on Twitter for a while, and now blogged
> about it:
> >
> >
> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/89-9.6,-or-10.0.html
> >
> > There are major changes in 9.6 (some of them are listed in the blog
> post), and
> > I think they are good enough to call this 10.0.
> >
> > A counter argument might be waiting for pglogical for inclusion, but I
> think
> > the current changes are enough to warrant a .0 release.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I think a big question is whether we want to save 10.0 for some
> incompatibility changes, though we didn't do that for 8.0 or 9.0.
>
>
Someone (can't remember who) suggested a good time is to do it when we can
allow actual zero-or-close-to-zero-downtime upgrades.

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.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/