Re: 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 being that we've already released 9.6beta1, and therefore
> we might not want to change at this point.  That doesn't seem like an
> insuperable barrier to me, but I think it's now time for the
> discussion on this topic to move here, because:
> 
> 1. Some people who have strong opinions may not have followed the
> discussion on pgsql-advocacy, and
> 
> 2. If we're going to rebrand this as 10.0, the work will have to get done here.
> 
> The major arguments advanced in favor of 10.0 are:
> 
> - There are a lot of exciting features in this release.
> 
> - Even if you aren't super-excited by the features in this release,
> PostgreSQL 9.6/10.0 is a world away from 10.0, and therefore it makes

I think you meant "a world away from 9.0".

Actually, I don't see the distance from 9.0 as a valid argument as 9.5
was probably also a world away from 9.0.

I prefer calling 9.7 as 10.0 because there will be near-zero-downtime
major upgrades with pg_logical (?), and parallelism will cover more
cases.  Built-in logical replication in 9.7 would be big too, and
another reason to do 9.7 as 10.0.

On the other hand, the _start_ of parallelism in 9.6 could be enough of
a reason to call it 10.0, with the idea that the 10-series is
increasingly parallel-aware.  You could argue that parallelism is a much
bigger deal than near-zero-downtime upgrades.

I think the fundamental issue is whether we want to lead the 10.0 branch
with parallelism, or wait for an administrative change like
near-zero-downtime major upgrades and built-in logical replication.

> sense to bump the version based on the amount of accumulated change
> between then and now.
> 
> 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.  Can someone
dig up the details?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+                     Ancient Roman grave inscription +