Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Date
Msg-id 13766.1581725936@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
List pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I also object because 20 is *my* unlucky number ...

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.  In Asia, numbers containing the digit 4
are considered unlucky [1], and there are probably other rules in other
cultures.  If we establish a precedent that we'll skip release numbers
for non-technical reasons, I'm afraid we'll be right back in the mess
we sought to avoid, whereby nearly every year we had an argument about
what the next release number would be.  So let's not go there.

            regards, tom lane

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Standards compliance of SET ROLE / SET SESSION AUTHORIZATION
Next
From: Ashwin Agrawal
Date:
Subject: Use LN_S instead of "ln -s" in Makefile