Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

> On May 13, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Josh berkus wrote: > >> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >> take to make the next version 10.0? > > I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Man, I hate version number inflation. I'm running Firefox 45.0.2, and > I think that's crazy. It hit 1.0 when were at aversion 7.4! I don't see what's wrong with large numbers, it's not like there's a shortage of

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 14/05/16 09:31, David G. Johnston wrote: On Friday, May 13, 2016, Tom Lane > wrote: Robert Haas > writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane > wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 02:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" writes: I mean we haven't yet actually identified a problem we are trying to solve have we? The problem I'd like to solve is not having to have this type of discussion again in future years ... Amen. JD

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Andrew Dunstan writes: > I don't have any strong opinions about this. It's essentially a > marketing decision, and I'm happy to leave that to others. If and when > we do change, I'd like to put in a modest request that we add an extra _ > to the branch names, like this:

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Bruce Momjian writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 05:36:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> "Joshua D. Drake" writes: >>> I mean we haven't yet actually identified a problem we are trying to >>> solve have we? >> The problem I'd like to solve is not having to

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 05:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: 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. :-) I agree year-based numbers will cause us grief. I

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 05:36:50PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" writes: > > I mean we haven't yet actually identified a problem we are trying to > > solve have we? > > The problem I'd like to solve is not having to have this type of > discussion again in

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

"Joshua D. Drake" writes: > I mean we haven't yet actually identified a problem we are trying to > solve have we? The problem I'd like to solve is not having to have this type of discussion again in future years ... regards, tom lane -- Sent

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On May 13, 2016 23:27, "Joshua D. Drake" wrote: > > On 05/13/2016 02:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> > >> Using something like .2.0 for the second one in the same year >> could be suggested, but to me that sounds like the worst of both worlds. > > > The amount of brain

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Friday, May 13, 2016, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas > writes: > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > > If we don't want to stick with the current practice of debating when > > to

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 02:22 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Using something like .2.0 for the second one in the same year could be suggested, but to me that sounds like the worst of both worlds. The amount of brain cycles, electricity, taxes on internet connectivity and transcontinental data spent on

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:06:26PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > 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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 02:06:26PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:48:39PM -0500, Merlin Moncure wrote: > Any versioning system that removes subjective criteria is good. These > debates in interminable and always have been. Personally I would go > with something even more antiseptic like basing the version on the > year, where year is

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Josh berkus 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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Merlin Moncure writes: > Any versioning system that removes subjective criteria is good. These > debates in interminable and always have been. Yeah, I got bored of the topic after about 8.0 ;-) > Personally I would go > with something even more antiseptic like basing the

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

* Tom Lane wrote: So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme. To be specific: * This year's major release will be 9.6.0, with minor

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Robert Haas writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves >> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" >> idea and going over to a

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Josh berkus wrote: >>> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >>> take to make the next version 10.0? > >> I think the next version should

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 5/13/16, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves >> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" >> idea and going

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 01:15 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves >> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" >> idea and going over to a

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves > lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" > idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme. To be >

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Andres Freund writes: > I'm in favor of doing something more radical than just stripping one > digit off. We've tried (and only partially failed) to educate users that > $major.$minor updates are the big ones; if we change that to essentially > be $major.$micro, we'll have

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Josh berkus writes: > On 05/13/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So I think we should solve these problems at a stroke, and save ourselves >> lots of breath in the future, by getting rid of the whole "major major" >> idea and going over to a two-part version numbering scheme.

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Hi, On 2016-05-13 12:36:00 -0700, Josh berkus wrote: > On 05/13/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera writes: > >> Josh berkus wrote: > > No confusion, no surprises, no debate ever again about what the next > > version number is. > > > > This is by no means

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 11:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera writes: >> Josh berkus wrote: >>> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >>> take to make the next version 10.0? > >> I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Josh berkus writes: > On 05/13/2016 08:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> 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? > /me digs through the announcement

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 08:19 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> > 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.

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: >> On 05/13/2016 08:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put >>> in. >> >> +1 >> >>

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Josh berkus wrote: >> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >> take to make the next version 10.0? > I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put > in. Here's my two cents: we called

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > On 05/13/2016 08:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Josh berkus wrote: >> >>> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >>> take to make the next version 10.0? >> >> I think the next version

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 08:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh berkus wrote: > >> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >> take to make the next version 10.0? > > I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put > in. +1 Let's even stamp it

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Josh berkus wrote: > Well, if we adopt 2-part version numbers, it will be. Maybe that's the > easiest thing? Then we never have to have this discussion again, which > certainly appeals to me ... -1 -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 03:31:37PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh berkus wrote: > > > Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will > > take to make the next version 10.0? > > I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put > in. +1 Cheers,

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 11:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Josh berkus wrote: > >> Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will >> take to make the next version 10.0? > > I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put > in. > Well, if we adopt 2-part

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 13/05/16 20:31, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Josh berkus wrote: Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will take to make the next version 10.0? I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put in. +1 -- Petr Jelinek

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Josh berkus wrote: > Anyway, can we come up with a consensus of some minimum changes it will > take to make the next version 10.0? I think the next version should be 10.0 no matter what changes we put in. -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development,

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 05/13/2016 09:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > More generally, rebranding after beta1 sends a very public signal that > we're a bunch of losers who couldn't make up our minds in a timely > fashion. We should have discussed this last month; now I think we're > stuck with a decision by default.

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 5/13/16, Bruce Momjian 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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 13/05/16 17:42, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: På fredag 13. mai 2016 kl. 17:05:23, skrev Robert Haas >: From a non-hacker... From a DBA/application-developer perspective while there are many exiting features in 9.6 I'd expect more from

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:30:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think you could, though, make an argument that breaking such code > after beta1 is a bit unfair. People expect to be able to do > compatibility testing with a new major version starting with beta1. One could, but I wouldn't find it

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

> On 13 May 2016, at 17:24, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dave Page wrote: >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote: >> > >> > Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

David Fetter writes: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:34:34PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: >> On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page wrote: >>> I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written >>> assuming the first part of the version number is only a

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

På fredag 13. mai 2016 kl. 18:22:00, skrev Magnus Hagander >: On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh > wrote: På fredag 13. mai 2016 kl. 17:05:23, skrev Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote: > > > > Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have > > already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. > > I suspect that won't be

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > På fredag 13. mai 2016 kl. 17:05:23, skrev Robert Haas < > robertmh...@gmail.com>: > > Hi, > > There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should > instead be called 10.0. Initially, opinions

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Friday, May 13, 2016, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org ) wrote: > > > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written > > > assuming the first part of the

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Stephen Frost writes: > On Friday, May 13, 2016, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Let's just go with 2016 instead then. >> We tried, that, "Postgres95". ;-) > Even better, we're being retro! It's

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 04:34:34PM +0100, Thom Brown wrote: > On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote: > >> > >> Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which > >> have already coded in

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Friday, May 13, 2016, Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bruce Momjian > wrote: > > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org ) wrote: > >> > I imagine

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote: >> > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written >> > assuming the first part of the version number

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:05:34PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote: > > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written > > assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit. > > Let's just go with 2016 instead then. > > At

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote: > I imagine the bigger issue will be apps that have been written > assuming the first part of the version number is only a single digit. Let's just go with 2016 instead then. At least then users would see how old the version they're running is (I was just

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

På fredag 13. mai 2016 kl. 17:05:23, skrev Robert Haas >: 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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 2016-05-13 10:34, Thom Brown wrote: On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page wrote: On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote: Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. I

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

Robert Haas writes: > There is a long-running thread on pgsql-hackers on whether 9.6 should > instead be called 10.0. First I've seen it mentioned here. I think you are just about exactly one week too late to bring this up. Once we've shipped a beta, rebranding is way too

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 13 May 2016 at 16:29, Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote: >> >> Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have >> already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. > > I suspect that won't be an issue (I

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Thom Brown wrote: > > Well, one potential issues is that there may be projects which have > already coded in 9.6 checks for feature support. I suspect that won't be an issue (I never heard of it being for 7.5, which was released as 8.0 - but is

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 13 May 2016 at 16:19, Bruce Momjian 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

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

On 13 May 2016 at 16:05, 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 >

Re: [HACKERS] 10.0

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

<    1   2