On 22.03.2016 16:54, Josh berkus wrote:
> 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.
What are the other 3?
Greetings,
Torsten