On 06/20/2016 10:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
10.x is the desired output.
10.x is the output that some people desire.
(explicitly skipped up-thread to add this -- please forgive my jumping in)
Since we are still (as a community) debating this, I felt the need to
add yet another possibility ...
(/me dons some asbestos underwear)
next version:
100100 [server_version] will be (gasp!) 10g R1 (for marketing people)
or simply 10.1.0 for the rest of the world.
Next update would be 1001001, a.k.a. 10g R1 u1
i.e. we would skip 10.0 alltogether, preserving everybody's sanity
in the process.
IMV, 10g R1 uX should plainly be a different *major* release than 10g
R2 uY
and hence requiring a proper "migration" (i.e. pg_upgrade)
...or at least that's what several multi-billion software companies
have taught most everybody to believe :$
A significant number of
people, including me, would prefer to stick with the current
three-part versioning scheme, possibly with some change to the
algorithm for bumping the first digit (e.g. every 5 years like
clockwork).
That's another story.... Either 5 (for historical reasons) or 10 year
(sounds good)
... or whenever it makes sense! (such as when a multi-modal, hybrid
row+column, vectored, MPP, super-duper-distributed, automagically
self-scaling or the like release is ready)
Thanks,
/ J.L.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
