From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
cc: Kirk Wolak <wolakk@gmail.com>, Nikolay Samokhvalov <nik@postgres.ai>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)?
In-reply-to: 
 <CAMsGm5fPUwBxgY2RGGzpEp7Sjv7VMU28vcjN+RmuWQpTWM2uRA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAM527d9HNDGS4wZBNK8vhRXtRX09i4UwKjvifUvSPS+P-i-1CQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACLU5mSnxYVf1ZkuZ4VuiREXA_42fe22+fR38y2_JJ6+WJQGyw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMsGm5fPUwBxgY2RGGzpEp7Sjv7VMU28vcjN+RmuWQpTWM2uRA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
	message dated "Thu, 21 May 2026 14:45:43 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <26421.1779465244.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 08:54:04 -0700
Message-ID: <26422.1779465244@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26422.1779465244%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> writes:
> I like this because it makes it very clear that there has been a change in
> numbering scheme. Skipping 7 numbers could be due to almost anything, in
> the long term, but no one will think PG2026 is just 2008 versions after
> PG18. Also, I agree that while most likely no one on this list will be
> worrying about this in 2100, it would be nice to know that nobody has to
> worry about what comes after PG99.

Geez, I thought we were permanently done with what-shall-we-call-
the-next-release threads after we dropped three-part version numbers.

I don't like either version of this proposal, because I fear it
puts way too much faith in our ability to adhere to a fixed release
calendar.  What happens if "v2027" slips into 2028?  Are we then
unable to resume the normal schedule for the following release?

			regards, tom lane