Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>
> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> Yeah, we can do that. I'd suggest we either name it based on the current
>>> tentative date for CF1 (september), or name it specificaly "9.7-first" or
>>> something like that rather than just plain "future", to make it more
>>> clear.
>> +1 to both names suggested by Magnus.
> We do need to pick one of them :)
> Anybody else with preferences?
2016-09 would be in keeping with all previous CF names. 9.7-first sounds
like it'd be more future-proof in case we change the schedule, but I'm not
sure about that either ... what if we decide over the summer that parallel
query is so cool that we should rename 9.6 to 10.0?
On balance I'd go with 2016-09, but I'm not going to argue very hard.
BTW, is there an ability to rename a CF once it's in the app? Seems like
that would reduce the stakes here.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
