| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Time-based Releases WAS: 8.5 release timetable, again |
| Date: | 2009-09-08 16:03:23 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790909080903qf51ccdfrc2454242a2f6277c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> I personally suspect PostgreSQL would want a 1 year cycle for major
> releases while a full dump/reload is required for upgrades. When this
> changes, 6 or even 4 months might actually be a good fit.
>
For some DBA specialist is 1 year cycle too much fast. I thing, so 1
year cycle is perfect for databases. Migration to new database
releases is some different then migration to new program. You have to
be more carefully, because wrong database could to destroy your data.
Normal use case for using a new version contains one year waiting. I
afraid so too much short cycle can break clean postgresql's release
process.
regards
Pavel Stehule
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kristian Larsson | 2009-09-08 16:04:34 | Re: Adding integers ( > 8 bytes) to an inet |
| Previous Message | Kristian Larsson | 2009-09-08 15:58:01 | Re: Adding integers ( > 8 bytes) to an inet |