| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Date: | 2003-06-20 15:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | 18403.1056122941@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 10:42, Tom Lane wrote:
>> <shrug> ... The backend will still talk to old clients, and libpq will
>> still talk to old backends, so I don't think the protocol change is
>> really going to cause a flag day for anyone. On a technical level it's
>> probably not an adequate reason to call this release 8.0.
> Can you give me an example of a technical change that would warrant a
> major version bump?
Well, if we hadn't gotten the work done to make libpq still able to talk
to older backends, then we'd have had enough of a compatibility issue
that I think calling it 8.0 would have been a reasonable thing to do.
If you want a feature-with-a-capital-F reason for going to 8.0, there is
only one candidate Feature in my personal view, and that's a built-in
replication solution. That doesn't seem to be getting any nearer :-(
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2003-06-20 15:41:08 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-06-20 15:21:55 | Re: Two weeks to feature freeze |