On Thursday, April 21, 2011 05:43:16 PM Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Ross J. Reedstrom <reeds...@rice.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:16:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > I agree. I am in favor of a shorter release cycle. > >> I'm not. I don't think there is any demand among *users* (as opposed to > >> developers) for more than one major PG release a year. It's hard enough > >> to get people to migrate that often. > > In fact, I predict that the observed behavior would be for even more end > > users to start skipping releases. Some already do - it's common not to > > upgrade unless there's a feature you really need, but for those who do > > stay on the 'current' upgrade path, you'll lose some who can't afford to > > spend more than one integration-testing round a year. > Well, that aspect of the problem doesn't bother me, much. I don't > really care whether people upgrade to each new release the moment it > comes out anyway. > Not to say that there aren't OTHER problems with the idea... One could argue that its causing bad PR for postgres. I have seen several parties planning to migrate away or not migrate to postgres because of performance evaluations they made. With 7.4, 8.0 and 8.2. In 2010.
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
