Обсуждение: Wild idea: 9.0?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Josh Berkus
Дата:
Hackers,

I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal,
and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways.  Between major
improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to
implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to
more-or-less stick to deadlines ...

... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?

Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.  And that some
of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges.

Of course, that does put is closer to 10.0 which is going to break a lot of
packager's scripts. ;-)

Thoughts?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Re: Wild idea: 9.0?

От
August Zajonc
Дата:
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Between major 
> improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to 
> implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to 
> more-or-less stick to deadlines ...
> 
> ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?  
> 
> Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a 
> warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.  And that some 
> of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges.
> 
> Of course, that does put is closer to 10.0 which is going to break a lot of 
> packager's scripts. ;-)
> 
> Thoughts?

I like 8.3 better personally.




Re: Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?

No.  This is mere version-number-inflation.

Eyeing the patch queue and wondering how much of it is really going to
get in, I'm not sure that eight point two and a half wouldn't be a more
appropriate name.  It's been a short devel cycle and one almost entirely
focused on performance, not user-visible features.

> Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
> warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.

Why would you think that?

            regards, tom lane

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
usleepless@gmail.com
Дата:
Josh, List,

On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane ordeal,
> and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways.  Between major
> improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes to
> implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to
> more-or-less stick to deadlines ...
>
> ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?
>
> Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
> warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.  And that some
> of our more radical features in the new version could have some rough edges.

as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should
really consider it.

a bunch of problems due toa  minor-release-number upgrade would come
as a suprise.

a major-release-number- upgrade i would investigate more thorough.

regards,

usleep

Re: Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Josh Berkus
Дата:
Tom,

> Eyeing the patch queue and wondering how much of it is really going to
> get in, I'm not sure that eight point two and a half wouldn't be a more
> appropriate name.  It's been a short devel cycle and one almost entirely
> focused on performance, not user-visible features.

Ah, in my enthusiasm I was assuming most of it would clear.

>
> > Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as
> > a warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.
>
> Why would you think that?

File format changes and the implicit conversion patch.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
usleepless@gmail.com escribió:
> Josh, List,
>
> On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

> >I was thinking about the upcoming release on my 32-hour epic airplane
> >ordeal,
> >and realizing that it changes PostgreSQL in a lot of ways.  Between major
> >improvements to performance, major changes to the file format, and changes
> >to
> >implicit conversions breaking backwards compatibility, our new ability to
> >more-or-less stick to deadlines ...
> >
> >... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?

I'm with Tom on this.  I don't think we've changed much in the way of
user visible behavior.


> >Seems like it'd be both an annoucement of how far we've come, as well as a
> >warning to users that the 8.2-->9.0 upgrade could be painful.  And that
> >some of our more radical features in the new version could have some
> >rough edges.
>
> as a casual user, only subscribed to this list, i think you should
> really consider it.
>
> a bunch of problems due toa  minor-release-number upgrade would come
> as a suprise.

That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Robert Treat
Дата:
On Monday 23 April 2007 18:17, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
> 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning

Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
"Magnus Hagander"
Дата:
> > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
> > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
> > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>
> Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.

Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you get that idea?

As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your patch...

/Magnus


Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Robert Treat
Дата:
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
> > > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
> >
> > Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
>
> Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you
> get that idea?
>

Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of
changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more
permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in
time.

> As for inclusion in the docs I beleive we're still waiting for your
> patch...
>

We'll see  :-)

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Magnus Hagander
Дата:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > > That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
> > > > 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
> > > > http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
> > >
> > > Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
> >
> > Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you
> > get that idea?
> >
>
> Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of
> changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more
> permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in
> time.

Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less
official, though, just transient.

//Magnus


Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Wild idea: 9.0?

От
Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 09:18:54AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 01:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>
>>>>> That would be just because you don't know the numbering scheme.  8.2 to
>>>>> 8.3 is considered "major" in these parts.  See
>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
>>>>>
>>>> Is that official policy? I don't see any mention of it in the docs.
>>>>
>>> Are you somehow suggesting that our website isn't official? Where did you
>>> get that idea?
>>>
>>>
>> Website information can often be of a transient nature, with no history of
>> changes or even the existence of information. Documentation is a little more
>> permanent, and at least offers a record of agreement at a specific point in
>> time.
>>
>
> Well, there is cvs history. But I see your point. Doesn't make it any less
> official, though, just transient.
>
>

There is plenty of valid information that is not in the docs. One might
just as well ask where did the policy come from that the docs are the
only authoritative source of information on policy. ;-)

cheers

andrew