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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Date
Msg-id 20200213034448.GE1520@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:46:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again.  But
> my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
> pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
> any stone tablets.  So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
> that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.

Yeah, it is good to keep some flexibility here, so my take is that
there is little advantage in changing again the version numbering.
Note that any change like that induces an extra cost for anybody
maintaining builds of Postgres or any upgrade logic where the decision
depends on the version number of the origin build and the target
build.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Unicode normalization SQL functions
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in pg_restore with EventTrigger in parallel mode