Subject: Re: 7.4 vs 8.0 WAS Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
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
In-Reply-To: <3E6CE1F2.8030302@postgresql.org>
References: <19041.1047322279@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3E6CE1F2.8030302@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 10 Mar 2003 14:29:13 -0500
Message-Id: <1047324553.23066.640.camel@camel>
Mime-Version: 1.0

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