On 13 May 2016 at 16:19, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should >> instead be called 10.0. Initially, opinions were mixed, but consensus >> seems now to have emerged that 10.0 is a good choice, with the major >> hesitation being that we've already released 9.6beta1, and therefore >> we might not want to change at this point. That doesn't seem like an >> insuperable barrier to me, but I think it's now time for the >> discussion on this topic to move here, because: >> >> 1. Some people who have strong opinions may not have followed the >> discussion on pgsql-advocacy, and >> >> 2. If we're going to rebrand this as 10.0, the work will have to get done >> here. >> >> The major arguments advanced in favor of 10.0 are: >> >> - There are a lot of exciting features in this release. >> >> - Even if you aren't super-excited by the features in this release, >> PostgreSQL 9.6/10.0 is a world away from 10.0, and therefore it makes > > I think you meant "a world away from 9.0". > > Actually, I don't see the distance from 9.0 as a valid argument as 9.5 > was probably also a world away from 9.0. > > I prefer calling 9.7 as 10.0 because there will be near-zero-downtime > major upgrades with pg_logical (?), and parallelism will cover more > cases. Built-in logical replication in 9.7 would be big too, and > another reason to do 9.7 as 10.0. > > On the other hand, the _start_ of parallelism in 9.6 could be enough of > a reason to call it 10.0, with the idea that the 10-series is > increasingly parallel-aware. You could argue that parallelism is a much > bigger deal than near-zero-downtime upgrades. > > I think the fundamental issue is whether we want to lead the 10.0 branch > with parallelism, or wait for an administrative change like > near-zero-downtime major upgrades and built-in logical replication. > >> sense to bump the version based on the amount of accumulated change >> between then and now. >> >> Thoughts? Is it crazy to go from 9.6beta1 to 10.0beta2? What would >> actually be involved in making the change? > > Someone mentioned how Postgres 8.5 became 9.0, but then someone else > said the change was made during alpha releases, not beta. Can someone > dig up the details?
We had 8.5 alpha 3, then 9.0 alpha 4: REL8_5_ALPHA1 REL8_5_ALPHA2 REL8_5_ALPHA3 REL9_0_ALPHA4 REL9_0_ALPHA5 REL9_0_BETA1 REL9_0_BETA2 REL9_0_BETA3 REL9_0_BETA4 REL9_0_RC1 Thom -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers