Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mike Mascari
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Date
Msg-id 3FB96F06.7000205@mascari.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?  (Christoph Haller <ch@rodos.fzk.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Hello,
>
>   If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
> appropriate.

It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its
feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature
equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That would mean:

1) PITR
2) Distributed Tx
3) Replication
4) Nested Tx
5) PL/SQL Exception Handling

IMHO, a major version number jump should at least match the delta in
features one finds in the commercial segment with their major version
number bumps. Otherwise, I suspect it would be viewed as window
dressing...

Could be wrong, though...

Mike Mascari
mascarm@mascari.com





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: Release cycle length
Next
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: Release cycle length