| From: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, marcelo zen <mzen(at)itapua(dot)com(dot)uy>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |
| Date: | 2020-02-12 16:25:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAC+AXB3wWf9hhnHSms8d249NhhLV1FO6=tMbR5sctgfSAERuxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again. But
> my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
> pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
> any stone tablets. So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
> that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.
>
>
We could you use YYYY as version identifier, so people will not expect
correlative numbering. SQL Server is being released every couple of years
and they are using this naming shema. The problem would be releasing twice
the same year, but how likely would that be?
Regards,
Juan José Santamaría Flecha
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-02-12 16:30:25 | Re: Getting rid of some more lseek() calls |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-02-12 16:22:58 | Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? |