On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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. > > Yes, it's trivial to rename. That's the only advantage of our ugly url scheme which uses the surrogate key in the url instead of the actual name of the CF :)
-- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
