On 03/22/2016 07:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:07:42PM +0200, Devrim Gunduz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been ranting about this on Twitter for a while, and now blogged about it:
>>
>> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/devrim/index.php?/archives/89-9.6,-or-10.0.html
>>
>> There are major changes in 9.6 (some of them are listed in the blog post), and
>> I think they are good enough to call this 10.0.
>>
>> A counter argument might be waiting for pglogical for inclusion, but I think
>> the current changes are enough to warrant a .0 release.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think a big question is whether we want to save 10.0 for some
> incompatibility changes, though we didn't do that for 8.0 or 9.0.
AFAIK, there are no such incompatibilities proposed for any major
features. So it might be time to stop holding out for those.
If you compare 9.0 with 9.6, it's a pretty radically different database.
Here's all of the things which 9.6 will/might have which 9.0 did not:
* FDWs
* Parallel Query
* Built-in logical replication
* JSON support
* Background workers
* No more SysV mem
* ALTER SYSTEM
... etc.
Particularly, we've knocked out at least two of the "big five" technical
challenges, Parallel Query and upgrade without downtime. Given that, it
really seems like we're on version 10 now.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)