Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2004-06-05 Thread David Garamond
Tom Lane wrote: Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will have double digits in version number component Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9? As for Ruby, it probably won't expect >

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2004-06-05 Thread Tom Lane
David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects > (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will > have double digits in version number component Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9? In p

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2004-06-05 Thread David Garamond
Dave Page wrote: From: David Garamond Sent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AM Cc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2004-06-05 Thread Dave Page
  From: David GaramondSent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AMCc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2004-06-05 Thread Markus Bertheau
Ð ÐÐÑ, 05.06.2004, Ð 10:28, David Garamond ÐÐÑÐÑ: > This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but > consider how many more years we want to be able to use the digit>. major release numbering. > > Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), > t

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2004-06-05 Thread David Garamond
This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but consider how many more years we want to be able to use the . major release numbering. Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip t

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-19 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter wrote: >> Also note that most major number >> changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because >> the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move >> happening. > Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can y

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-19 Thread Reinoud van Leeuwen
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:18:51PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote: > > > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. > > I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. > They weren't necessarily happy, of

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-19 Thread Nick Fankhauser
> > > Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them > > seen to think > > > that it's important for expanding our userbase: > > > http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=9 > > That does not say that better entertainment will attract new > > viewers, just that the existing v

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Greg Stark
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 > > > machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1 > > > Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 > > > MySQL 4.0.12 > > > Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 > > > Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 > > >

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we > > > >find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the > >child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have > >done and walk you throu

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Dann Corbit
> -Original Message- > From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:23 AM > To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > > > ---

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread ow
--- Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 > machine I am typing this message from. > DB/2 7.1 > Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 > MySQL 4.0.12 > Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 > Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 > (Also SapDB, Firebird serv

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Dann Corbit
> -Original Message- > From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:39 AM > To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > > --- Da

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Christopher Browne
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ow) wrote: > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I haven't seen Sybase on Windows (only barely have seen it anywhere, fitting with the comment made that it hides in the lucrative financial industry); I _have_ se

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Josh Berkus
Marek, > Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy & > identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not > only in technical related fields ? If your interest is "marketing" PostgreSQL, please join the Advocacy list. That goes for anyone on this lis

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote: > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the time. As for Sybase, you don't see that bec

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread ow
--- Rocco Altier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote: > > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. > > I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real > thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product iAnywh

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
ow wrote: Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. Then you need to get out more. I have seen Oracle, Sybase, DB2 (and probably Informix, I forget) all running on Windows in a numbe

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Rocco Altier
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote: > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product (a remote replication solution for PocketPC applications), Windo

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread ow
--- Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which feature is requested more than that? Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find plenty of stuff more important than win32 port. > Of the following (which includes every signifi

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have done and walk you through areas that need work. If you look at t

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Claudio Natoli wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from > > core can indicate > > > how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code > > > rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this. > > > > http://momjian.po

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Claudio Natoli
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from > core can indicate > > how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code > > rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this. > > http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.h

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Bruce Momjian
Claudio Natoli wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Here's the situation as I see it: > > . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port > > . this is important to some people and not important to others > > . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work > > has been

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Marek Lewczuk
Uz.ytkownik Jean-Michel POURE napisa?: For me, this makes 60% of the market at least. A 1% to 60% is not a small difference, it is a real gap. Don't forget that success isn't always connected with technical things (very good example is MySQL :-)) - PostgreSQL needs a good marketing, clear strate

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Claudio Natoli
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Here's the situation as I see it: > . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port > . this is important to some people and not important to others > . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work > has been done, and more is being done > > Isn

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Claudio Natoli
> > Claudio Natoli wrote: Claudio Natoli wrote nothing of the sort :-P --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html";>http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html --

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Jean-Michel POURE
Le Mardi 18 Novembre 2003 06:21, Greg Stark a écrit : > Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens > of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a > pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean > it's useful. Dear Gre

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Marek Lewczuk
Uz.ytkownik Andrew Dunstan napisa?: Claudio Natoli wrote: As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important. At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing requirements. Let's not get h

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Claudio Natoli wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser quality, or otherwise inferior? Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) always worse per

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Claudio Natoli
> > I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a > > production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser > > quality, or otherwise inferior? > > Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) > always worse perfomance when

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Marek Lewczuk
Użytkownik Shachar Shemesh napisał: Dave Page wrote: Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't know if it's actually right unless we try it. We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL o

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Shachar Shemesh wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being alow here alow->slow Just wanted to avoid confusion. -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Shachar Shemesh
Dave Page wrote: Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't know if it's actually right unless we try it. We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32', but the chances are that t

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 November 2003 09:23 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Josh Berkus; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > Dave Page write

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Dave Page writes: > Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them seen to think > that it's important for expanding our userbase: > http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=9 That survey is a bit like asking television viewers, "What do you think would attract the most new

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Christoph Haller
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be > > appropriate. > > It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its > feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature > equivalent to an Oracle

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Dann Corbit writes: > > > Cygwin requires a license for commercial use. > > > > No, it does not. > > Really? > > What's this then? > http://www.cygwin.com/licensing.html The Cygwin license, the GPL, specifically says: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not cover

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Dave Page
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 November 2003 23:31 > To: Josh Berkus > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > Josh Berkus writes: > >

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-18 Thread Andrew Dunstan
c: Matthew T. O'Connor; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark; PostgreSQL Development Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Dann Corbit writes: At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend in exactly this case. Yes, but how

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Dann Corbit
> -Original Message- > From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:39 PM > To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > > > --- Christopher

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. I don

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread ow
--- Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the > world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port". Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of things that are much more important than win32 por

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Dann Corbit
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:34 PM > To: Dann Corbit > Cc: Matthew T. O'Connor; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark; > PostgreSQL Development > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Dann Corbit writes: > > At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend in > > exactly this case. > > Yes, but how friendly is it? What are you asking here? Is it easy to install and use? Yes. > Cygwin requires a license for commercial use. No, it does not. -- Peter Eisentraut [

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Dann Corbit
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:04 PM > To: Matthew T. O'Connor > Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Greg Stark
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the > > world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port". > > > > It could conveivably double Postgres's target audience, could attract heaps > > of new users, new devel

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Matthew T. O'Connor writes: > Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform to > run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers who > work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely used > desktop environment. At the risk of stating the ob

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Matthew T. O'Connor
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. I don't call porting Postgres to run

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Greg Stark
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) PITR > 2) Distributed Tx > 3) Replication > 4) Nested Tx > 5) PL/SQL Exception Handling Of these PITR seems *by far* the most important. It makes the difference between an enterprise-class database capable of running 24x7 with disaster recovery plans

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: > > Also note that most major number > > changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because > > the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move > > happening. > > Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can you explain how that worked >

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Mike Mascari
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be > appropriate. It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That woul

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? Seems like > even 7.4 is hardly recognizable as the same database as 7.0. Discussion like this tends to be more for just before beta, once we have an idea what actually made it in :) You be pu

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Joshua D. Drake
> As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the > least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to Yes but these are people running Unix/Linux/BSD not Windows ;) > have to come up with better reasons. Also note that most major number > changes i

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be appropriate. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Folks, > > Of course, while I was editing press releases at 2am, I started thinking about > our next version. It seems certain tha

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Josh Berkus
Peter, > As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the > least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to > have to come up with better reasons. Yeah, I'm more interested in ARC and replication ... and the SQL standardization that just went into

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Josh Berkus writes: > Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to have to come up with better reasons. Also note that most major numbe

Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

2003-11-17 Thread Neil Conway
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems certain that the next release, in 6-9 months, will have at > a minimum the Windows port and ARC, if not Slony-I as well. > > Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? It seems a little premature to speculate on what features may