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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Date
Msg-id CAA8=A79pmjai1zFiYDvSm9uwT-4bX-At+ZrRQUxFpjDmDk+Kxw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 2:14 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> 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.

+1

I also object because 20 is *my* unlucky number ...

cheers

andrew



-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Retiring pg_regress' --load-language option
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Memory-Bounded Hash Aggregation