Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 4:19 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Not sure how serious Andrew is being here, but it does open up an
> important point: there are varying opinions on which numbers are unlucky.
> The idea that 13 is unlucky is Western, and maybe even only common in
> English-speaking countries.

I would wager that this superstition is the main reason why Oracle 12c
was followed by Oracle 18c rather than Oracle 13c. I have no evidence
for this -- I take it on faith.

I feel that I should take the proposal seriously for at least a
moment. The proposal doesn't affect anybody who isn't into numerology.
At the same time, it makes the superstitious people happy (leaving
aside the icosaphobes). Airlines do this with row numbers -- what's
the harm?

There is a real downside to this, though. It is a bad idea, even on
its own terms. If we take the idea seriously, then it has every chance
of being noticed and becoming a big distraction in all sorts of ways.
That might happen anyway, but I think it's less likely this way.

ISTM that the smart thing to do is to ignore it completely. Don't even
try to preempt a silly headline written by some tech journalist
wiseacre.

--
Peter Geoghegan