Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 03/22/2016 10:52 AM, Peter Geoghegan 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.

Well, if we had pglogical AND parallel, I would be pushing hard for
10.0.  As it is, I was going to wait to see what else gets in.

As it is, we have parallel and we have all of the BDR dependancies
merged in, no?  That still seems like a new era for PostgreSQL; I think
we can expect the next few releases to be all about (a) parallelizing
more things and (b) building out clustering stuff.

One thing we don't much talk about is that we hit an inflection point
somewhere in the 9.X series, as demonstrated by CitusDB: it is now as
easy to build out your "Postgres Fork" by using our APIs and hooks as it
is by forking the project.  That's going to make a big difference for us
in the long run, possibly bigger than any individual feature.

--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)