Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Oleg Bartunov
Subject Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Date
Msg-id CAF4Au4wUgV1C3SGfkGtBZanwr9r-j+kf1bnAjy-k3=3xEdXuZw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 9.6 -> 10.0  (Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
List pgsql-advocacy


On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> It's important to remember that PR strategy and engineering truth have
> only a passing acquaintance.  While we don't want to promote vaporware,
> we do sometimes soft-pedal our own features to our project's detriment.
> In the current atomosphere of VC-funded hype, we'd do a bit better to
> trumpet our accomplishements early and often.

I see what you mean.

The question must be asked: What feature *would* meet that "major
version bump" standard? If it's not extensive parallelism, then I
don't know what else it could be.

Built-in HA Cluster. Hope  to discuss it on PGCon.  I thought about release 10 in the context of cluster.

 

--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan


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

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Next
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: Suitable response to Oracle?