PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Started by Christopher Kings-Lynnealmost 24 years ago22 messages
#1Christopher Kings-Lynne
chriskl@familyhealth.com.au

I was thinking and it seems that by the next release of Postgres we might
have:

* Schemas
* Domains
* Maybe a new on-the-wire protocol
* ...and maybe prepared statement support to go along with??

Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?

Chris

#2Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:

Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?

It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we
need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet.

I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release
is a release, whatever you call it.

regards, tom lane

#3Colin Faber
cfaber@fpsn.net
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Personally, I have to agree with Tom,

Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-)

<sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL
XP</sarcasm>

Tom Lane wrote:

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:

Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?

It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we
need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet.

I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release
is a release, whatever you call it.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

--
Colin Faber
(303) 859-1491
fpsn.net, Inc.

#4Justin Clift
justin@postgresql.org
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Heh Heh Heh

Well, if we can get a *really good operating version of PostgreSQL in
Cygwin* happening on XP, why not?

;-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Colin Faber wrote:

Personally, I have to agree with Tom,

Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-)

<sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL
XP</sarcasm>

Tom Lane wrote:

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:

Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?

It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we
need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet.

I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release
is a release, whatever you call it.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

--
Colin Faber
(303) 859-1491
fpsn.net, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

#5Lee Kindness
lkindness@csl.co.uk
In reply to: Colin Faber (#3)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...

I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

Lee.

Colin Faber writes:

Show quoted text

Personally, I have to agree with Tom,

Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-)

<sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL
XP</sarcasm>

Tom Lane wrote:

"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:

Doesn't this seem like postgresql 8.0, rather than 7.3?

It took us five years to go from 6.0 to 7.0 ... I don't think we
need talk about 8.0 for awhile yet.

I'm not in favor of arbitrary "release number inflation". A release
is a release, whatever you call it.

#6Dominic J. Eidson
sauron@the-infinite.org
In reply to: Lee Kindness (#5)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...

I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time..

"post-gre-sql"

(And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel)

--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/

#7Vince Vielhaber
vev@michvhf.com
In reply to: Dominic J. Eidson (#6)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...

I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time..

"post-gre-sql"

(And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel)

The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and
wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced
with a long e which is incorrect.

Vince.
--
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================

#8Dominic J. Eidson
sauron@the-infinite.org
In reply to: Vince Vielhaber (#7)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Vince Vielhaber wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...

I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time..

"post-gre-sql"

(And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel)

The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and
wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced
with a long e which is incorrect.

Sorry, that should've been "post-gres-ql", same as the mp3.

--
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.the-infinite.org/ http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/

#9Lee Kindness
lkindness@csl.co.uk
In reply to: Vince Vielhaber (#7)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Guys,

Vince Vielhaber writes:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...
I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time..
"post-gre-sql" (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel)

The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and
wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced
with a long e which is incorrect.

I know how it's pronounced, I never said anything to the contrary! The
actual fact that there is a need for the pronunciation on the webpage
hints at my point - it's a real mouthful!

And as I said this was a 'whimsical' post - I don't really care either
way what the name is... But i'm sure most people shorten it to
Postgres.

Lee.

#10Hannu Krosing
hannu@krosing.net
In reply to: Lee Kindness (#9)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Fri, 2002-02-22 at 01:11, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

I know how it's pronounced, I never said anything to the contrary! The
actual fact that there is a need for the pronunciation on the webpage
hints at my point - it's a real mouthful!

And as I said this was a 'whimsical' post - I don't really care either
way what the name is... But i'm sure most people shorten it to
Postgres.

I shorten it to PgSQL, and just 'pronounce' the letters *shrug*

I often omit the the -gre- part so it comes out as PostSQL - most people
never notice..

Postgres is a different project, with a different Query langauge ...

Postgres 95 is what - a different project with the same query language,
or the same project with a different name?

Of course we should have gone the industry standard way - first to
Postgres 98, then 5.0/2000 and then XP :)

Btw there are rumours that the next version of Windows will be based on
relational data storage thus they too will reach WindowSQL soon. Hah!

-------------
Hannu

#11Jan Wieck
janwieck@yahoo.com
In reply to: Justin Clift (#4)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Justin Clift wrote:

Heh Heh Heh

Well, if we can get a *really good operating version of PostgreSQL in
Cygwin* happening on XP, why not?

Postgrillenium? XPg? PostgreSQL for Workgroups!

;-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

#12Marc G. Fournier
scrappy@hub.org
In reply to: Lee Kindness (#5)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...

I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

What is so hard about: Post-GreS-Q-L? I've yet to have a problem with it
rolling off the tongue ...

Now, of course, if you want Postgres, we can always rip out the SQL,
revert back to PostQuel for the Query language ... but I suspect you might
be one of the few that wants that, no? :) That woudl kinda set us back ~6
years and put the project back into UofC@B, no?

#13Marc G. Fournier
scrappy@hub.org
In reply to: Lee Kindness (#9)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

Guys,

Vince Vielhaber writes:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Lee Kindness wrote:

On a slightly related note, and just as whimsical nature...
I've often wondered now many people actual say the name 'PostgreSQL',
I mean it flows off the tongue so easily! Whereas 'Postgres' is 100
times simpler...

As much as I get really bored when this comes up time after time..
"post-gre-sql" (And no, SQL's not pronounced sequel)

The proper pronunciation is on the PostgreSQL home page in mp3 and
wav formats. The above implies that the second sylable is pronounced
with a long e which is incorrect.

I know how it's pronounced, I never said anything to the contrary! The
actual fact that there is a need for the pronunciation on the webpage
hints at my point - it's a real mouthful!

And as I said this was a 'whimsical' post - I don't really care either
way what the name is... But i'm sure most people shorten it to
Postgres.

I shorten it to PgSQL, and just 'pronounce' the letters *shrug*

Postgres is a different project, with a different Query langauge ...

#14Art Nicewick
art.nicewick@ams.com
In reply to: Marc G. Fournier (#13)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Pee - Gee - Sequel

pgSQL

Is much easier to say...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arthur Nicewick
American Management Systems
Corporate Technology Group
art_nicewick@ams.com
(703) 267-8569

Quote of the week:
All parts should go together without forcing. You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you. Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason. By all means, do not
use a hammer.
--IBM maintenance manual, 1925

#15mlw
markw@mohawksoft.com
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Colin Faber wrote:

Personally, I have to agree with Tom,

Silly versioning like that is for marketing teams and microsoft ;-)

<sarcasm>How about the next version be released as PostgreSQL
XP</sarcasm>

Let us not all think we are "too good" not to market our work.

I have been involved with too many projects that were technically better, but
managed and marketed poorly, thus failed.

PostgreSQL could use a bit of marketing here and there. The version number
thing? I don't know, but a bit of competitive window dressing would help a
great deal.

I don't know about you guys, but I would LOVE PostgreSQL to be the dominant SQL
engine on small to medium deployments. Not only is it capable of doing so, it
is better than almost all the technologies in that space.

For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.

#16Thomas Lockhart
thomas@fourpalms.org
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

...

Agreed.

For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.

Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;)

- Thomas

#17Justin Clift
justin@postgresql.org
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Heh Heh Heh

How about PostgreSQL Server 11.0 Enterprise Edition?

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Thomas Lockhart wrote:

...

Agreed.

For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.

Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;)

- Thomas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

#18Jason Earl
jason.earl@simplot.com
In reply to: Thomas Lockhart (#16)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org> writes:

...

Agreed.

For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.

Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;)

- Thomas

I think that it makes better sense than PostgreSQL XP. Whatever
"marketing" you guys plan to do make sure you mix in a vowel or two.

Personally I would promote the idea of going "all out" and naming the
new version of PostgreSQL something like:

PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET

This might require a change in the MP3 pronunciation file, and you
probably wouldn't want to make the name change official until you
bumped up the maximum column length.

Jason

#19Michael Larocque
mlarocque@shaw.ca
In reply to: Justin Clift (#17)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Justin Clift wrote:

Heh Heh Heh

How about PostgreSQL Server 11.0 Enterprise Edition?

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Hmm,

What about Redhat Database.

Oops, that's been done already.

:)

Carpe viam,
Mike

#20Colin Faber
cfaber@fpsn.net
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

haha.

I love it jason,

"PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET"

"For those of you that need to harness distributed interfaces, engineer
world-class architectures and synthesize cross-media experiences for the
expedition of your integrated communities"

Jason Earl wrote:

Thomas Lockhart <thomas@fourpalms.org> writes:

...

Agreed.

For PostgreSQL to achieve its real potential, the game must be played.

Hmm. Would "PostgreSQL version (Oracle + 1)i" be too transparent? ;)

- Thomas

I think that it makes better sense than PostgreSQL XP. Whatever
"marketing" you guys plan to do make sure you mix in a vowel or two.

Personally I would promote the idea of going "all out" and naming the
new version of PostgreSQL something like:

PostgreSQL 2002i XP Anywhere eDatabase-O-Matic.NET

This might require a change in the MP3 pronunciation file, and you
probably wouldn't want to make the name change official until you
bumped up the maximum column length.

Jason

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

--
Colin Faber
(303) 859-1491
fpsn.net, Inc.

#21Jean-Michel POURE
jm.poure@freesurf.fr
In reply to: Justin Clift (#17)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

Le Mardi 26 Février 2002 19:09, Justin Clift a écrit :

How about PostgreSQL Server 11.0 Enterprise Edition?

Let me show you how to free the world from marketing numberings:
Oracle 8, Oracle 9, Oracle 10, Oracle 11, Oracle 12, Oracle 13, ..., Oracle
is dead. No more Oracle. Free, at last ...

/JMP

#22Jean-Michel POURE
jm.poure@freesurf.fr
In reply to: Christopher Kings-Lynne (#1)
Re: PostgreSQL 8.0 ??

What do you mean?

Oracle 8.0 will die. So why stick to its versions?