> Josh, List,
> On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane 
> >ordeal,
> >and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways.  Between major
> >improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes 
> >to
> >implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to
> >more-or-less stick to deadlines ...
> >
> >... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?

I'm with Tom on this.  I don't think we've changed much in the way of
user visible behavior.

> >Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
> >warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.  And that 
> >some of our more radical features in the new version could have some
> >rough edges.
> as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should
> really consider it.
> a bunch of problems due toa  minor-release-number upgrade would come
> as a suprise.

That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See 

Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to