Lists: | pgsql-advocacypgsql-hackers |
---|
From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 19:24:15 |
Message-ID: | 200704231224.15429.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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
From: | August Zajonc <augustz(at)augustz(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 20:16:14 |
Message-ID: | 462D140E.8010207@augustz.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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.
From: | Robert Bernier <robert(dot)bernier5(at)sympatico(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 20:22:34 |
Message-ID: | 200704231622.34256.robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
My five cents...
On Monday 23 April 2007 15:24, Josh Berkus wrote:
> ... should this be 9.0 instead of 8.3?
This sounds a lot like the talk some of the guys had at OSCON discussing the version number issue just before 8.0 was released that fall.
Offhand I would agree with a 9.0 version number if the upcoming changes are of equal significance of 8.0 from it's earlier version.
Robert
From: | Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 21:53:08 |
Message-ID: | 462D2AC4.4070109@pooteeweet.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus 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?
Just wondering: does this have any implications about a possible end of
life of the 7.x branch?
regards,
Lukas
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 21:57:37 |
Message-ID: | 14078.1177365457@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)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
From: | usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 22:03:59 |
Message-ID: | c39ec84c0704231503r2c920dbbw638e304d4879180f@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Josh, List,
On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)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
From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 22:17:47 |
Message-ID: | 200704231517.48045.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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
From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 22:17:49 |
Message-ID: | 20070423221749.GF12624@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com escribió:
> Josh, List,
>
> On 4/23/07, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)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.
From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-23 22:20:08 |
Message-ID: | 200704240020.09161.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> Just wondering: does this have any implications about a possible end
> of life of the 7.x branch?
Not that there is a "7.x branch", but: No.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-24 01:15:38 |
Message-ID: | 200704232115.38853.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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
From: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-24 05:32:08 |
Message-ID: | 20070424053243.A34AADCC876@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
> > 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
From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-24 13:18:54 |
Message-ID: | 200704240918.54598.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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
From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-24 13:45:15 |
Message-ID: | 20070424134515.GE15856@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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
From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com, usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |
Date: | 2007-04-24 14:24:16 |
Message-ID: | 462E1310.3070205@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
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