Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wRCFK-002AdN-1x for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:04:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wRCFI-00H5IW-1j for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:04:13 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wRCFI-00H5IN-0p for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:04:13 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wRCFG-00000001Dme-397X for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 24 May 2026 17:04:12 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 64OH3x5X2293455; Sun, 24 May 2026 13:03:59 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Isaac Morland , Kirk Wolak , Nikolay Samokhvalov , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)? In-reply-to: <0e41a002-ec9d-4acd-bb2c-3104c12607e3@eisentraut.org> References: <26422.1779465244@sss.pgh.pa.us> <0e41a002-ec9d-4acd-bb2c-3104c12607e3@eisentraut.org> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Sun, 24 May 2026 16:22:47 +0200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2293453.1779642239.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 24 May 2026 13:03:59 -0400 Message-ID: <2293454.1779642239@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 22.05.26 08:54, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. A different angle came up in the AI-focused unconference session at PGConf.dev: somebody speculated that use of AI might accelerate our development cycle to the point where it'd be sensible to have two major releases per year. I'm not saying I believe that, mind you. But it reinforces the point that tying our release numbers to years would put undesirable constraints on our release calendar. regards, tom lane