Re: 10.0

On 13 May 2016 at 16:19, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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?

We had 8.5 alpha 3, then 9.0 alpha 4:

REL8_5_ALPHA1
REL8_5_ALPHA2
REL8_5_ALPHA3
REL9_0_ALPHA4
REL9_0_ALPHA5
REL9_0_BETA1
REL9_0_BETA2
REL9_0_BETA3
REL9_0_BETA4
REL9_0_RC1

Thom