On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 03/22/2016 10:52 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
With a couple more of the "big but not 10.0-on-their-own" that are currently in the CF I think it should be a 10.0. To answer Roberts question before, specifically if we get things like multivariate statistics, casual reads, multiple sync standbys, snapshot too old, relation extend scalability and maybe unique joins, I definitely say we have that. And not all of them, pick two or three of those and I think we have a 10.0. (oh, and of course the updated backup APIs :P must have those! :P)
So to be fair with input. I listed 6 things there. We got 3.5 of those, and a bunch of others.
Which removes most of my initial argument against bumping the version number.
