On Thursday, April 21, 2011 05:43:16 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Ross J. Reedstrom <reedstrm@rice.edu>
wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:16:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > I agree. I am in favor of a shorter release cycle.
> >> I'm not. I don't think there is any demand among *users* (as opposed to
> >> developers) for more than one major PG release a year. It's hard enough
> >> to get people to migrate that often.
> > In fact, I predict that the observed behavior would be for even more end
> > users to start skipping releases. Some already do - it's common not to
> > upgrade unless there's a feature you really need, but for those who do
> > stay on the 'current' upgrade path, you'll lose some who can't afford to
> > spend more than one integration-testing round a year.
> Well, that aspect of the problem doesn't bother me, much. I don't
> really care whether people upgrade to each new release the moment it
> comes out anyway.
> Not to say that there aren't OTHER problems with the idea...
One could argue that its causing bad PR for postgres. I have seen several
parties planning to migrate away or not migrate to postgres because of
performance evaluations they made. With 7.4, 8.0 and 8.2. In 2010.
Andres