Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 05/13/2016 02:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> I still don't like that much, and just thought of another reason why: >> it would foreclose doing two major releases per year. We have debated >> that sort of schedule in the past. While I don't see any reason to >> think we'd try to do it in the near future, it would be sad if we >> foreclosed the possibility by a poor choice of versioning scheme.
> Well, we have done two major releases in a year before, mostly due to > one release being late and the succeeding one being on time. What I was on about in this case was the idea of a six-month major release cycle, which I definitely remember being discussed more-or-less-seriously in the past. The question of what to do with a release that slips past December 31st is distinct from that, though it would also be annoying if we're using year-based numbers. An analogy that might get some traction among database geeks is that version numbers are a sort of surrogate key, and assigning meaning to surrogate keys is a bad idea. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers