Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Jose Luis Tallon
Hackers,

     Musing some other date-related things I stumbled upon the thought
that naming the upcoming release PostgreSQL 20 might be preferrable to
the current/expected "PostgreSQL 13".


Cons:

  * Discontinuity in versions. 12 -> 20.  Now that we have the precedent
of 9.6 -> 10 (for very good reasons, I think), this is probably a minor
issue... Mostly the inconvenience of having to add tests for the skipped
versions, I believe.

     ¿any others that I don't know about?

Pros:

  * Simplified supportability assessment:  PostgreSQL 20, released in
2020, would be supported until the release of PostgreSQL 25 (late 2025
if release cadence is kept as today). Simple and straightforward.

  * We avoid users skipping the release altogether due to superstition
or analogous reasons ---might be a major issue in some cultures---.
Postgres 13 would be certainly skipped in production in some
environments that I know about o_0


Nothing really important, I guess. I think of it as a thought experiment
mostly, but might spark some ultimate useful debate.


Thanks,

     / J.L.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Vik Fearing-6
On 09/02/2020 19:28, Jose Luis Tallon wrote:
>  * Simplified supportability assessment:  PostgreSQL 20, released in
> 2020, would be supported until the release of PostgreSQL 25 (late 2025
> if release cadence is kept as today). Simple and straightforward.

How would you handle multiple releases in the same calendar year (such
as 9.5 and 9.6 were)?

>  * We avoid users skipping the release altogether due to superstition or
> analogous reasons ---might be a major issue in some cultures---.
> Postgres 13 would be certainly skipped in production in some
> environments that I know about o_0

That's not our problem.
--
Vik Fearing


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Tom Lane-2
In reply to this post by Jose Luis Tallon
Jose Luis Tallon <[hidden email]> writes:
>      Musing some other date-related things I stumbled upon the thought
> that naming the upcoming release PostgreSQL 20 might be preferrable to
> the current/expected "PostgreSQL 13".

Sorry, but it's not April 1st yet.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
In reply to this post by Jose Luis Tallon
From: Jose Luis Tallon <[hidden email]>
>      Musing some other date-related things I stumbled upon the thought
> that naming the upcoming release PostgreSQL 20 might be preferrable to
> the current/expected "PostgreSQL 13".

+1
Users can easily know how old/new the release is that they are using.


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Wolfgang Wilhelm
And nobody is asking about all the "missing" versions like in a big red superstitious database.


Am Montag, 10. Februar 2020, 00:45:02 MEZ hat [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Folgendes geschrieben:


From: Jose Luis Tallon <[hidden email]>

>      Musing some other date-related things I stumbled upon the thought
> that naming the upcoming release PostgreSQL 20 might be preferrable to
> the current/expected "PostgreSQL 13".

+1

Users can easily know how old/new the release is that they are using.


Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Joshua D. Drake

From: Jose Luis Tallon <[hidden email]>

>      Musing some other date-related things I stumbled upon the thought
> that naming the upcoming release PostgreSQL 20 might be preferrable to
> the current/expected "PostgreSQL 13".

+1

Users can easily know how old/new the release is that they are using.


There are multiple pros and cons to this idea. There is an argument since we are on annual releases that 20 makes sense, and (14) would be 21 etc... However, there is a significant problem with that. Our annual releases are a relatively new thing and I can definitely see a situation in the future where we move back to non-annual releases to a more conservative timeline. Further, the jump of the number is going to be seen as a marketing ploy and if we are going to be doing marketing ploys, then we should have the new feature set to back it up upon release.

JD


 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sv: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Andreas Joseph Krogh-2
In reply to this post by Jose Luis Tallon
Didn't last long...
 
--
Andreas Joseph Krogh
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

marcelo zen
I'd rather have releases being made when the software is ready and not when the calendar year mandates it. 
It seems like a terrible idea.

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 14:03, Andreas Joseph Krogh <[hidden email]> wrote:
Didn't last long...
 
--
Andreas Joseph Krogh
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Alvaro Herrera-9
marcelo zen escribió:
> I'd rather have releases being made when the software is ready and not when
> the calendar year mandates it.
> It seems like a terrible idea.

But we do actually release on calendar year.  While it seems not
unreasonable that we might fail to ship in time, that would likely lead
to one month, two months of delay.  Four months?  I don't think anybody
even imagines such a long delay.  It would be seen as utter,
unacceptable failure of our release team.

Others have commented in this thread that the idea seems ridiculous, and
I concur.  But the reason is not what you say.  The reason, I think, is
that for years we spent months each time debating what to name the next
release; and only recently, in version 10, we decided to change our
numbering scheme so that these pointless discussions are gone for good.
To think that just three years after that we're going to waste months
again discussing the same topic ...?  Surely not.

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Andreas Karlsson
On 2/12/20 12:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> marcelo zen escribió:
>> I'd rather have releases being made when the software is ready and not when
>> the calendar year mandates it.
>> It seems like a terrible idea.
>
> But we do actually release on calendar year.  While it seems not
> unreasonable that we might fail to ship in time, that would likely lead
> to one month, two months of delay.  Four months?  I don't think anybody
> even imagines such a long delay.  It would be seen as utter,
> unacceptable failure of our release team.

It has actually happened once: PostgreSQL 9.5 was released in 2016-01-07.

> Others have commented in this thread that the idea seems ridiculous, and
> I concur.  But the reason is not what you say.  The reason, I think, is
> that for years we spent months each time debating what to name the next
> release; and only recently, in version 10, we decided to change our
> numbering scheme so that these pointless discussions are gone for good.
> To think that just three years after that we're going to waste months
> again discussing the same topic ...?  Surely not.

Agreed, and personally I do not see enough benefit from moving to 20.X
or 2020.X for it to be worth re-opening this discussion. The bikeshed is
already painted.

Andreas


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Tom Lane-2
Andreas Karlsson <[hidden email]> writes:
> On 2/12/20 12:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> But we do actually release on calendar year.  While it seems not
>> unreasonable that we might fail to ship in time, that would likely lead
>> to one month, two months of delay.  Four months?  I don't think anybody
>> even imagines such a long delay.  It would be seen as utter,
>> unacceptable failure of our release team.

> It has actually happened once: PostgreSQL 9.5 was released in 2016-01-07.

Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again.  But
my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
any stone tablets.  So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Alvaro Herrera-9
In reply to this post by Andreas Karlsson
Andreas Karlsson escribió:

> On 2/12/20 12:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > marcelo zen escribió:
> > > I'd rather have releases being made when the software is ready and not when
> > > the calendar year mandates it.
> > > It seems like a terrible idea.
> >
> > But we do actually release on calendar year.  While it seems not
> > unreasonable that we might fail to ship in time, that would likely lead
> > to one month, two months of delay.  Four months?  I don't think anybody
> > even imagines such a long delay.  It would be seen as utter,
> > unacceptable failure of our release team.
>
> It has actually happened once: PostgreSQL 9.5 was released in 2016-01-07.

We didn't have a formal release team back then :-)  It started with 9.6.
Some history: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/RMT  Anyway, I concede
that it's too recent history to say that this will never happen again.

Retroactively we could still have named "Postgres 15" the one released
on January 2016.  It was clearly the development line made during 2015,
it just got a little bit delayed.

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Juan José Santamaría Flecha
In reply to this post by Tom Lane-2


On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again.  But
my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
any stone tablets.  So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.


We could you use YYYY as version identifier, so people will not expect correlative numbering. SQL Server is being released every couple of years and they are using this naming shema. The problem would be releasing twice the same year, but how likely would that be?

Regards,

Juan José Santamaría Flecha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Christopher Browne-3
In reply to this post by Alvaro Herrera-9
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 08:28, Alvaro Herrera <[hidden email]> wrote:
marcelo zen escribió:
> I'd rather have releases being made when the software is ready and not when
> the calendar year mandates it.
> It seems like a terrible idea.

But we do actually release on calendar year.  While it seems not
unreasonable that we might fail to ship in time, that would likely lead
to one month, two months of delay.  Four months?  I don't think anybody
even imagines such a long delay.  It would be seen as utter,
unacceptable failure of our release team.

All said, I think there's some merit to avoiding a PostgreSQL 13 release, because
there's enough superstition out there about the infamous "number 13."

Perhaps we could avert it by doing an "April Fool's Postgres 13" release?
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Laurenz Albe
On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 12:32 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> All said, I think there's some merit to avoiding a PostgreSQL 13 release, because
> there's enough superstition out there about the infamous "number 13."

It would make me sad if the project kotowed to superstition like Oracle did.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Isaac Morland
On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 14:58, Laurenz Albe <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 2020-02-12 at 12:32 -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
> All said, I think there's some merit to avoiding a PostgreSQL 13 release, because
> there's enough superstition out there about the infamous "number 13."

It would make me sad if the project kotowed to superstition like Oracle did.

Agreed. That being said, everybody knows you can't avoid the curse of 13 by re-numbering it - you simply have to avoid the version/floor/day/whatever after 12.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

David Fetter
In reply to this post by Juan José Santamaría Flecha
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again.  But
> > my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
> > pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
> > any stone tablets.  So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
> > that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.
> >
> >
> We could you use YYYY as version identifier, so people will not expect
> correlative numbering. SQL Server is being released every couple of years
> and they are using this naming shema. The problem would be releasing twice
> the same year, but how likely would that be?

We've released more than one major version in a year before, so we
have a track record of that actually happening.

Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Ray O'Donnell
On 12/02/2020 21:10, David Fetter wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 05:25:15PM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:47 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again.  But
>>> my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
>>> pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
>>> any stone tablets.  So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
>>> that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.
>>>
>>>
>> We could you use YYYY as version identifier, so people will not expect
>> correlative numbering. SQL Server is being released every couple of years
>> and they are using this naming shema. The problem would be releasing twice
>> the same year, but how likely would that be?
>
> We've released more than one major version in a year before, so we
> have a track record of that actually happening.

Besides what everyone else has said, it's not that long since the
numbering scheme was changed for major versions. Changing it again so
soon would, IMHO, look confused at best.

Ray.

--
Raymond O'Donnell // Galway // Ireland
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Michael Banck-2
In reply to this post by Andreas Karlsson
Hi,

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:52:53PM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:

> On 2/12/20 12:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > marcelo zen escribió:
> > > I'd rather have releases being made when the software is ready and
> > > not when the calendar year mandates it.  It seems like a terrible
> > > idea.
> >
> > But we do actually release on calendar year.  While it seems not
> > unreasonable that we might fail to ship in time, that would likely lead
> > to one month, two months of delay.  Four months?  I don't think anybody
> > even imagines such a long delay.  It would be seen as utter,
> > unacceptable failure of our release team.
>
> It has actually happened once: PostgreSQL 9.5 was released in 2016-01-07.

It was my undestanding that this prompted us to form the release team,
which has since done a great job of making sure that this does not
happen again.

Of course, this does not mean it won't ever happen again. Even then,
shipping PostgreSQL 23 at the beginning of 2024 wouldn't be a total
disaster in my opinion.

The fact that the community might want to re-think the major release
cycle at some point and not be tied to yearly release numbers is the
most convincing argument against it.

That, and the PR-style "sell-out" it might be regarded as.


Michael

--
Michael Banck
Projektleiter / Senior Berater
Tel.: +49 2166 9901-171
Fax:  +49 2166 9901-100
Email: [hidden email]

credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
Trompeterallee 108, 41189 Mönchengladbach
Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer

Unser Umgang mit personenbezogenen Daten unterliegt
folgenden Bestimmungen: https://www.credativ.de/datenschutz


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Just for fun: Postgres 20?

Michael Paquier-2
In reply to this post by Tom Lane-2
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 09:46:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah; I don't think it's *that* unlikely for it to happen again.  But
> my own principal concern about this mirrors what somebody else already
> pointed out: the one-major-release-per-year schedule is not engraved on
> any stone tablets.  So I don't want to go to a release numbering system
> that depends on us doing it that way for the rest of time.

Yeah, it is good to keep some flexibility here, so my take is that
there is little advantage in changing again the version numbering.
Note that any change like that induces an extra cost for anybody
maintaining builds of Postgres or any upgrade logic where the decision
depends on the version number of the origin build and the target
build.
--
Michael

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
12