On Thursday, April 21, 2011 06:39:44 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's certainly true. It's clearly insane to benchmark with anything
> other than the latest major release - on any product - if you want to
> have any pretense of fairness.
The usual argument against that is that $version is the only available on
$platform in version $version...
And I doubt that a higher number of new pg versions will lead to more
supported releases in distributions...
Andres