Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <0e41a002-ec9d-4acd-bb2c-3104c12607e3@eisentraut.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 16:22:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik@postgres.ai>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAM527d9HNDGS4wZBNK8vhRXtRX09i4UwKjvifUvSPS+P-i-1CQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLU5mSnxYVf1ZkuZ4VuiREXA_42fe22+fR38y2_JJ6+WJQGyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMsGm5fPUwBxgY2RGGzpEp7Sjv7VMU28vcjN+RmuWQpTWM2uRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <26422.1779465244@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <26422.1779465244@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0e41a002-ec9d-4acd-bb2c-3104c12607e3%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 22.05.26 08:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> writes:
>> I like this because it makes it very clear that there has been a change in
>> numbering scheme. Skipping 7 numbers could be due to almost anything, in
>> the long term, but no one will think PG2026 is just 2008 versions after
>> PG18. Also, I agree that while most likely no one on this list will be
>> worrying about this in 2100, it would be nice to know that nobody has to
>> worry about what comes after PG99.
> 
> Geez, I thought we were permanently done with what-shall-we-call-
> the-next-release threads after we dropped three-part version numbers.
> 
> I don't like either version of this proposal, because I fear it
> puts way too much faith in our ability to adhere to a fixed release
> calendar.  What happens if "v2027" slips into 2028?  Are we then
> unable to resume the normal schedule for the following release?

Furthermore, some things that release toward the end of year N are 
released as version N+1, for marketing reasons.  So this approach 
wouldn't even really reduce ambiguity or the need for more arguing.