On 5/13/16, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:05:23AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The major arguments advanced in favor of 10.0 are:
>> - There are a lot of exciting features in this release.
If I'm mot mistaken each release introduced exciting features.
In my opinion:
9.5 - kind of UPSERT & RLS;
9.4 - reduced locks for ALTER TABLE, concurrent matview updates and JSONB(!!!);
9.3 - autoupdatable views & LATERAL joins & event trigger;
9.2 - RANGE data types & index-only scans & planner improvements;
9.1 - FDW & extensions & true SERIALIZABLE isolation level & data
modification in CTE.
Each version is a candidate to be 10.0 by the same reasons as people
try to show now.
Since each version has quite big changes and you can't predict how
great changes will be in the next release why don't just increase the
second digit up to 9? As for me version 9.9 is beautiful enough (and
version 9.9.9 is even more beautiful). =)
>> - 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 (?),
I dream there is time of zero-downtime when admins are instantiate new
version of PostgreSQL, make it slave, wait until it finishes
synchronization (prepare to multimaster), replace both of them as
multimaster online (without downtime), then reconnect clients to the
new instance, then leave new instance as master and shutdown old
If it appears in the release after next one (which is expected be 10.1
or 10.0 or 9.8, i.e. after the next year), whether we update major
number again (11.0) or leave numeration as is (it will be
10.2/10.1/9.9) or it is the real reason to bump 9.8->10.0 (but in this
particular case I'd leave 9.9)?
> 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 each developer/DBA search for different benefit from each release.
E.g. parallelism is not so important for OLTP developers and
near-zero-downtime is mostly for system administrators/DBA.
> 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.
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
I'd vote for 9.6 up to 9.9 then 10.0…
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: