| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 22:32:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAM-w4HM-GN+dN0Lcnts=3ChW048Mm21G-82c60LWDxWDVU3MoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Man, I hate version number inflation. I'm running Firefox 45.0.2, and
> I think that's crazy. It hit 1.0 when were at aversion 7.4!
I don't see what's wrong with large numbers, it's not like there's a
shortage of numbers.
And for what it's worth the only reason we we were on 7.x at all is
that we went from 1.0.5 to 6.0 -- precisely because it was our sixth
release. If we had kept on that track we would have been on the same
plan Tom is proposing now.
One alternative to really drive home that the new scheme is a change
to people would be to do the same again. By my count 9.6 will be our
28th release. We could jump from 9.6 to Postgres 29.0. (That would
have the side benefit that we could retroactively number all the
previous releases in a consistent way if we wanted to)
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-05-13 22:40:52 | Re: Postgres_fdw join pushdown - getting server crash in left outer join of three table |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2016-05-13 22:31:15 | Re: 10.0 |