Re: 7.4 vs 8.0 WAS Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-03-10T19:29:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 14:05, Justin Clift wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > <snip> > > One way to tamp down expectations of client backwards compatibility > > would be to call the release 8.0 instead of 7.4 ;-) > > > > Comments? > > Actually, I've been thinking about the numbering of the next PostgreSQL > version for a few days now. > > The scenario that's appealing to me the most is this for the next release: > > PostgreSQL 8.0 > ************** > > + Includes PITR and the Win32 port > > + Not sure where Satoshi is up to with his 2 phase commit proposal, but > that might make sense to incorporate into a wire protocol revision. > From memory he received funding to work on it, so it might be coming > along nicely. > > + Other things optional of course. > > > Personally, I'd rather we go for PostgreSQL 8.0, waiting a while extra > for PITR and Win32 if needed, and also properly co-ordinate all of the > release process information (website updates, package builds, Announce > to the mailing lists and news sources). > I don't think PITR or Win32 (or even replication) warrant an 8.0, since none of those should effect client/server interaction and/or backward compatibility. (Or at least not as much as schema support did, which required most "adminy" apps to be worked over) A protocol change however, would warrant a version number bump IMHO. I would guess that by the time all of the protocol changes could be completed, we'd have win32 or pitr, so it will hopefully be moot. Robert Treat