Re: 9.0 ? - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Robert Treat
Subject Re: 9.0 ?
Date
Msg-id 200901020938.26929.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to 9.0 ?  ("damien@dalibo.info" <damien@dalibo.info>)
Responses Re: 9.0 ?  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
List pgsql-advocacy
On Friday 02 January 2009 05:49:57 damien@dalibo.info wrote:
> Hello !
>
> and happy new year to every one :-)
>
> i've had an idea coming over the last few weeks while i was reading the
> current commit fest web page (
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_2008-11 )
>
> To put it simple the idea is :"why not naming the upcoming version
> PostgreSQL 9.0 instead of PostgreSQL 8.4 ?"
>
> i guess this decision belongs to core-hackers. Furthermore i must admit
> that i've no idea what were the reasons to go from 7.4 to 8.0. I wasn't
> involved in the PostgreSQL community at the time, i haven't found any
> discussion about it on the mailing archives and the versioning page
> doesn't explain how the first digit evolves :
>

IIRC, the primary reason 7.5 became 8.0 was due to the changes required to
support win32, which touched a significant enough portion of the code base
that even those people who did not plan to use the win32 support (or any of
the new features) could have been effected by the changes in that release to
underlying routines that had been reworked.

> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>
> By the way, when i see what's going to be inside the next major release
> i can't help telling me that this is gonna be a tremendous version and a
> "great leap forward" :)
>
> From my point of view this version will be an answer to many long-time
> users wishes : windowing function, embedded replication mechanism,
> improved FSM management, etc.
>

while these changes are things that a lot of people want, you should be
cautious in that not all of the items in commitfest page are guaranteed to
get in (and it's probably unlikely they all will at this point)

also, it's important to keep in mind that while some of these changes are
significant, things like the dead space map and changes to FSM are really
evolutionary changes, not revolutionary changes. (I think in-place upgrades
are probably the biggest revolutionary change left out there, but that's just
my opinion)

> i ain't nostradum but i've the feeling that this new version will
> amplify the numbers of migrations to PostgreSQL and we will see lots of
> new users in 2009. The 8.0 was the beginning of a new era, the
> forthcoming version may be another cornerstone.
>
> So it might be a good idea to increment the first digit. That would have
> a strong effect in public announcements and press releases. I think that
> will bring more spotlights to this new version and that will make the
> advocacy work a lot easier.
>
> i don't know if it's the right time and the right place to launch this
> debate but i'd like to know what you guys think about having PostgreSQL
> 9.0 released in 2009 :)
>

Current policy is that we don't increment the version number for marketing
purposes, and at this point it's probably premature to have the discussion
until we get a complete picture of what items not yet committed will actually
make it in.

--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.0 ?
Next
From: Chander Ganesan
Date:
Subject: BOF at PyCon 2009?