Re: New versioning scheme

On 13/05/16 18:55, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2016-05-12 8:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> In my view, the principal advantage of the current system is that it
>> slow version number inflation.  Bumping the first version number every
>> year causes you to burn through ten numbers a decade rather than ~2,
>> and I find that appealing.
>>
>> But of course that's a matter of opinion.
>
> This implies that numbers are a scarce resource, which they are not,
> we have an infinite number of them.  Also mind that even going this
> way, we aren't going to get to the end of the 2-digit major versions
> for a century. -- Darren Duncan
>
>
>
How about we initiate hyper inflation and call the next version of pg
1000, so it appears to be 100 times better than MySQL which is only on
version 10 - we can always give pg a version number greater than
whatever the MySQL crowd assigns there latest version - after all 'we
have an infinite number of them'!

Simply because there are more numbers than we need, does NOT mean that
we SHOULD to go for larger numbers!

I accept that the differences between pg 9.0 & 9.6 are greater than
between pg 8.0 & 9,0 - so renaming the current 9.6 as 10, or the next
(9.7) as 10 - seems quite reasonable to me.

I would not object to having a version 9.42 in a few years - though not
for more than a few seconds!   :-)