Hello !

and happy new year to every one :-)

i've had an idea coming over the last few weeks while i was reading the
current commit fest web page (
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_2008-11 )

To put it simple the idea is :"why not naming the upcoming version
PostgreSQL 9.0 instead of PostgreSQL 8.4 ?"

i guess this decision belongs to core-hackers. Furthermore i must admit
that i've no idea what were the reasons to go from 7.4 to 8.0. I wasn't
involved in the PostgreSQL community at the time, i haven't found any
discussion about it on the mailing archives and the versioning page
doesn't explain how the first digit evolves :

http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning

By the way, when i see what's going to be inside the next major release
i can't help telling me that this is gonna be a tremendous version and a
"great leap forward" :)

From my point of view this version will be an answer to many long-time
users wishes : windowing function, embedded replication mechanism,
improved FSM management, etc.

i ain't nostradum but i've the feeling that this new version will
amplify the numbers of migrations to PostgreSQL and we will see lots of
new users in 2009. The 8.0 was the beginning of a new era, the
forthcoming version may be another cornerstone.

So it might be a good idea to increment the first digit. That would have
a strong effect in public announcements and press releases. I think that
will bring more spotlights to this new version and that will make the
advocacy work a lot easier.

i don't know if it's the right time and the right place to launch this
debate but i'd like to know what you guys think about having PostgreSQL
9.0 released in 2009 :)

Search Discussions

  • Devrim Gündüz at Jan 2, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 11:49 +0100, damien@dalibo.info wrote:


    i don't know if it's the right time and the right place to launch this
    debate but i'd like to know what you guys think about having
    PostgreSQL
    9.0 released in 2009 :)
    Actually I was thinking the same, but I think we should use 9.0
    *if/when* the hot standby and sync replication patches are committed.

    Regards,
    --
    Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
    devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
    http://www.gunduz.org
  • Robert Treat at Jan 2, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    On Friday 02 January 2009 05:49:57 damien@dalibo.info wrote:
    Hello !

    and happy new year to every one :-)

    i've had an idea coming over the last few weeks while i was reading the
    current commit fest web page (
    http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_2008-11 )

    To put it simple the idea is :"why not naming the upcoming version
    PostgreSQL 9.0 instead of PostgreSQL 8.4 ?"

    i guess this decision belongs to core-hackers. Furthermore i must admit
    that i've no idea what were the reasons to go from 7.4 to 8.0. I wasn't
    involved in the PostgreSQL community at the time, i haven't found any
    discussion about it on the mailing archives and the versioning page
    doesn't explain how the first digit evolves :
    IIRC, the primary reason 7.5 became 8.0 was due to the changes required to
    support win32, which touched a significant enough portion of the code base
    that even those people who did not plan to use the win32 support (or any of
    the new features) could have been effected by the changes in that release to
    underlying routines that had been reworked.
    http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning

    By the way, when i see what's going to be inside the next major release
    i can't help telling me that this is gonna be a tremendous version and a
    "great leap forward" :)

    From my point of view this version will be an answer to many long-time
    users wishes : windowing function, embedded replication mechanism,
    improved FSM management, etc.
    while these changes are things that a lot of people want, you should be
    cautious in that not all of the items in commitfest page are guaranteed to
    get in (and it's probably unlikely they all will at this point)

    also, it's important to keep in mind that while some of these changes are
    significant, things like the dead space map and changes to FSM are really
    evolutionary changes, not revolutionary changes. (I think in-place upgrades
    are probably the biggest revolutionary change left out there, but that's just
    my opinion)
    i ain't nostradum but i've the feeling that this new version will
    amplify the numbers of migrations to PostgreSQL and we will see lots of
    new users in 2009. The 8.0 was the beginning of a new era, the
    forthcoming version may be another cornerstone.

    So it might be a good idea to increment the first digit. That would have
    a strong effect in public announcements and press releases. I think that
    will bring more spotlights to this new version and that will make the
    advocacy work a lot easier.

    i don't know if it's the right time and the right place to launch this
    debate but i'd like to know what you guys think about having PostgreSQL
    9.0 released in 2009 :)
    Current policy is that we don't increment the version number for marketing
    purposes, and at this point it's probably premature to have the discussion
    until we get a complete picture of what items not yet committed will actually
    make it in.

    --
    Robert Treat
    Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
    Consulting: http://www.omniti.com
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 5, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    Current policy is that we don't increment the version number for marketing
    purposes, and at this point it's probably premature to have the discussion
    until we get a complete picture of what items not yet committed will actually
    make it in.
    Also, it's going to be painful for our redistributors when we switch
    over to 10.0, so we're setting a really high bar for that first digit.

    We took 10 years to go from 6.0 to 8.0. Linux is still on version 2, as
    is Java, and Perl has been version 5 for ~~ 12 years now. So, no rush. ;-)

    --Josh
  • Peter Eisentraut at Jan 5, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    On Monday 05 January 2009 19:57:22 Josh Berkus wrote:
    Also, it's going to be painful for our redistributors when we switch
    over to 10.0,
    Huh?

    Clearly, they have had enough time to practice on 8.2.9 -> 8.2.10 or whatever.
  • Devrim Gündüz at Jan 6, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 21:04 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    Clearly, they have had enough time to practice on 8.2.9 -> 8.2.10 or
    whatever.
    Oh, I spent 2 weeks in order to get used to typing 2 digits instead of 1
    digit :P

    --
    Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE
    devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
    http://www.gunduz.org
  • Chander Ganesan at Jan 6, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
    On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 21:04 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

    Clearly, they have had enough time to practice on 8.2.9 -> 8.2.10 or
    whatever.
    Oh, I spent 2 weeks in order to get used to typing 2 digits instead of 1
    digit :P
    Perhaps we should also adopt an ubuntu-like strategy of naming the
    releases. That'll give people the impression of major version changes
    instead of the number. For example, perhaps the next version could be
    code named "Cornucopious Core" or something ;-) Kind of like "Hardy
    Heron", or "Dapper Dan" . I think today people tend to refer to the
    name of the release rather than the version...

    I, of course, am not totally serious here...

    --
    Chander Ganesan
    Open Technology Group, Inc.
    One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
    Morrisville, NC 27560
    919-463-0999/877-258-8987
    http://www.otg-nc.com
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 6, 2009 at 7:00 pm
    All,
    Perhaps we should also adopt an ubuntu-like strategy of naming the
    releases. That'll give people the impression of major version changes
    instead of the number. For example, perhaps the next version could be
    code named "Cornucopious Core" or something ;-) Kind of like "Hardy
    Heron", or "Dapper Dan" . I think today people tend to refer to the
    Gods forfend!

    Not that you were serious, but I actually rank the Ubuntu release naming
    scheme as "experimental failure" (kind of like "Postgres95"), and wish
    Ubuntu would go back to naming the releases after the date, or just use
    numbers like everyone else. I'm forever trying to remember whether the
    current release is "Dapper Dalmation" or "Stellar Sparrow" or "Woody
    Woodpecker" or "Moose & Squirrel". And don't get me started on Apple
    and their releases of OSX "Ocelot" and "Caracal". It's a release naming
    scheme which caters exclusively to insiders.

    Seriously, though, the real issue we'll run into with PostgreSQL 10 is
    that there's several Linux distributors (including, I think, Red Hat)
    which are using a package serial scheme which doesn't include a leading
    "0". So the upcoming version is 80400, not 080400, and will cause them
    to do some rejiggering when we do eventually release version 10.

    --Josh
  • Peter Eisentraut at Jan 6, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    On Tuesday 06 January 2009 20:59:46 Josh Berkus wrote:
    Not that you were serious, but I actually rank the Ubuntu release naming
    scheme as "experimental failure" (kind of like "Postgres95"), and wish
    Ubuntu would go back to naming the releases after the date, or just use
    numbers like everyone else.
    If you go to the Ubuntu web site, they offer you release 8.10 and 8.04 LTS for
    download. Seems perfectly normal.
    I'm forever trying to remember whether the
    current release is "Dapper Dalmation" or "Stellar Sparrow" or "Woody
    Woodpecker" or "Moose & Squirrel". And don't get me started on Apple
    and their releases of OSX "Ocelot" and "Caracal". It's a release naming
    scheme which caters exclusively to insiders.
    Operating systems vendors are particularly prone to do that, apparently. (cf.
    also Microsoft, Sun)
    Seriously, though, the real issue we'll run into with PostgreSQL 10 is
    that there's several Linux distributors (including, I think, Red Hat)
    which are using a package serial scheme which doesn't include a leading
    "0". So the upcoming version is 80400, not 080400, and will cause them
    to do some rejiggering when we do eventually release version 10.
    With some bemusement I notice your posts on this topic whenever "PostgreSQL
    10" is mentioned anywhere. But it is quite frankly complete nonsense. Any
    packaging system worth anything can handle that without any problem. Not to
    mention that your hypothesized "package serial scheme" bears no similarity
    with reality.

    So, relax, we'll be fine.
  • Dave Page at Jan 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
    With some bemusement I notice your posts on this topic whenever "PostgreSQL
    10" is mentioned anywhere. But it is quite frankly complete nonsense. Any
    packaging system worth anything can handle that without any problem.
    Even Windows will cope with it :-p

    --
    Dave Page
    EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
  • Greg Smith at Jan 7, 2009 at 6:01 am

    On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Josh Berkus wrote:

    Seriously, though, the real issue we'll run into with PostgreSQL 10 is that
    there's several Linux distributors (including, I think, Red Hat) which are
    using a package serial scheme which doesn't include a leading "0". So the
    upcoming version is 80400, not 080400, and will cause them to do some
    rejiggering when we do eventually release version 10.
    There isn't any such serial version scheme that I'm aware of for the RHEL
    packages. Here's a RHEL4 install showing the expected x.y.z number:

    $ rpm -qi postgresql-libs
    Name : postgresql-libs Relocations: (not relocatable)
    Version : 7.4.19 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
    Release : 1.el4_6.1

    As for where that comes from, this is what the latest Fedora .spec file
    building recent packages looks like:

    Summary: PostgreSQL client programs and libraries
    Name: postgresql
    Version: 8.3.5
    Release: 2%{?dist}

    No serial scheme to be found there. emacs has had version numbers >10 for
    a long time; here's one of those packages that has a version number like
    the PG packages will have eventually, works fine:

    $ rpm -qi xemacs
    Name : xemacs Relocations: (not relocatable)
    Version : 21.4.15 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
    Release : 11.EL4

    I just took a quick glance at the Debian, Gentoo, and SuSE packaging as
    well, and they all seemed OK too. Looks to me like if this problem
    existed at some point, it's already been resolved in all the major Linux
    distributions. I'd be surprised if there were really "several" left where
    this is still a concern.

    --
    * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
  • Damien clochard at Jan 9, 2009 at 5:05 pm

    Josh Berkus a écrit :
    All,
    Perhaps we should also adopt an ubuntu-like strategy of naming the
    releases. That'll give people the impression of major version changes
    instead of the number. For example, perhaps the next version could be
    code named "Cornucopious Core" or something ;-) Kind of like "Hardy
    Heron", or "Dapper Dan" . I think today people tend to refer to the
    Gods forfend!

    Not that you were serious, but I actually rank the Ubuntu release naming
    scheme as "experimental failure" (kind of like "Postgres95"), and wish
    Ubuntu would go back to naming the releases after the date, or just use
    numbers like everyone else. I'm forever trying to remember whether the
    current release is "Dapper Dalmation" or "Stellar Sparrow" or "Woody
    Woodpecker" or "Moose & Squirrel". And don't get me started on Apple
    and their releases of OSX "Ocelot" and "Caracal". It's a release naming
    scheme which caters exclusively to insiders.
    Every naming scheme is only understandable by insiders. After apart from
    debian fanboys, who can tell where "etch" and "sarge" names come from ?
    It's strictly the same thing with version number, except us, who can say
    what were the differences between the 8.0 and the 8.1 :-)

    The only advantage of release naming is that it's more fun than numbers.

    how about "Elegant Elephant" ? "Persistent Pachyderm" ? "Marvelous
    Mastodont" ? :o)
  • Emanuel Calvo Franco at Jan 9, 2009 at 8:31 pm

    2009/1/9 damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info>:
    Josh Berkus a écrit :
    All,
    Perhaps we should also adopt an ubuntu-like strategy of naming the
    releases. That'll give people the impression of major version changes
    instead of the number. For example, perhaps the next version could be
    code named "Cornucopious Core" or something ;-) Kind of like "Hardy
    Heron", or "Dapper Dan" . I think today people tend to refer to the
    Gods forfend!

    Not that you were serious, but I actually rank the Ubuntu release naming
    scheme as "experimental failure" (kind of like "Postgres95"), and wish
    Ubuntu would go back to naming the releases after the date, or just use
    numbers like everyone else. I'm forever trying to remember whether the
    current release is "Dapper Dalmation" or "Stellar Sparrow" or "Woody
    Woodpecker" or "Moose & Squirrel". And don't get me started on Apple
    and their releases of OSX "Ocelot" and "Caracal". It's a release naming
    scheme which caters exclusively to insiders.
    When we talk about 'labels' in the most cases we talk about SO's.
    If you see, comercial databases don't use 'names' AFAIK.
    Make the software more seriusly.

    In relation of more big number of versions, i think it is not really a
    good point.
    I think less digits shows you that the software is more 'stable' IMHO.

    I think too that the 9 version must support inside tools to full replication.
    Every naming scheme is only understandable by insiders. After apart from
    debian fanboys, who can tell where "etch" and "sarge" names come from ?
    It's strictly the same thing with version number, except us, who can say
    what were the differences between the 8.0 and the 8.1 :-)

    The only advantage of release naming is that it's more fun than numbers.

    how about "Elegant Elephant" ? "Persistent Pachyderm" ? "Marvelous
    Mastodont" ? :o)
    "Eternal Mamooth" ... :P

    Regards

    --
    Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
    To make changes to your subscription:
    http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy


    --
    Emanuel Calvo Franco
    ArPUG / AOSUG Member
    Postgresql Support & Admin
  • Dawid Kuroczko at Jan 19, 2009 at 11:39 am

    On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
    Current policy is that we don't increment the version number for marketing
    purposes, and at this point it's probably premature to have the discussion
    until we get a complete picture of what items not yet committed will
    actually make it in.
    Also, it's going to be painful for our redistributors when we switch over to
    10.0, so we're setting a really high bar for that first digit.
    Assuming the sync replication and hot standby get committed and we
    bump the version to 9.0, there will be a huge 'awesomeness' factor
    needed to bump it to 10.

    Frankly I cannot even imagine what new feature would mandate bumping
    from 9 to 10. :-)
    We took 10 years to go from 6.0 to 8.0. Linux is still on version 2, as is
    Java, and Perl has been version 5 for ~~ 12 years now. So, no rush. ;-)
    While I don't like the versions to be bumped up too quickly, I think there
    is one pretty important reason.

    Major version bump serves not only as a PR statement. It is also
    'early warning' indicator -- "Hey, we've changed so much stuff / added
    so many new features so you'd better be careful.". And I would think
    we owe it to users. :-)

    Best regards,
    Dawid
    --
    .................. ``The essence of real creativity is a certain
    : *Dawid Kuroczko* : playfulness, a flitting from idea to idea
    : qnex42@gmail.com : without getting bogged down by fixated demands.''
    `..................' Sherkaner Underhill, A Deepness in the Sky, V. Vinge
  • Josh Berkus at Jan 21, 2009 at 1:12 am
    Dawid,
    Major version bump serves not only as a PR statement. It is also
    'early warning' indicator -- "Hey, we've changed so much stuff / added
    so many new features so you'd better be careful.". And I would think
    we owe it to users. :-)
    Yes. Speaking entirely for myself, it's possible that we'll start using
    the first digit to indicate file format changes which make in-place
    upgrade impossible.

    --Josh

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-advocacy @
categoriespostgresql
postedJan 2, '09 at 10:50a
activeJan 21, '09 at 1:12a
posts15
users10
websitepostgresql.org
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase