On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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.
Someone (can't remember who) suggested a good time is to do it when we can allow actual zero-or-close-to-zero-downtime upgrades.
My understanding was that we would wait for a disk format change that has been brewing sometime now, which then also requires zero downtime upgrades. We don't have either of those things in 9.6.
It would make more sense to declare a release 10.0 in advance at the May dev meeting, then work to put in a whole load of incompatibilities all into one release. i.e. a planned compatibility break, which is what everybody will think we have done if we declare 10.0. They will then be surprised if that all happens in 10.1 or some other time.
I like the idea to *plan* 10.0 release in advance instead of finding out which features are good enough for this. If we agree, we could concentrate our resources on this plan.