On 1/20/16 4:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:12:07AM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote:
I just don't buy the Ubuntu release model for our database. Ubuntu is
trying to balance hot features vs stability, while we are really focused
on stability, similar to Debian.
I understand but I think we are missing out on an opportunity here.
Notice that the shorter release cycle for STS will actually make
some things easier. Including:
* Increased test base (just like Fedora/Ubuntu)
* Increased early adopter testing (that is what early adopting is
really about for us anyway)
* Decreased concerns about upgrades and ability to extend upgrade status.
I can see LTS working for plugin change, but not server binary changes.
s/LTS/STS/?
In any case, I think JD is onto something here. As someone that focuses
more on user experience than "deep core" code, I already find yearly
releases to be quite inconvenient. It's hard to find the motivation to
make a minor improvement in something (especially knowing how hard it
will be to get the patch approved) knowing that it won't see the light
of day for a year, and realistically I won't be able to use it with any
clients that are in production for 2-3 years.
Given the high level of extensibility that we have, maybe it would be
good to logically segregate stuff into things that are deeply embedded
in the "core" code (ie: on-disk format) from things that are much easier
to change when necessary (like add-on functions or PLs). Things like new
JSON operators could be released much more rapidly that way.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
