To be fair, quoting from the article:
> There are no big new features in Postgres 13, but there are a lot of small but important incremental improvements. Let's take a look.
But also, in general, yes there are pieces of software that do this - most recently Moment.js[1]. There was some discussion earlier this week[2].
Not much on .0 versions, those are more feature packed, but all the other time.
Occasionally, there are cases that could be argued to be exceptions to the general rule. But that's a hard argument to make -- everything committed to a back branch is officially a bug fix. Things like optimizer regression fixes are "performance enhancements" in a certain sense, but are nevertheless justified as bug fixes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: I've re-closed the comment but if you want to add to it, you're welcome to email [email protected].
And while there are cases where I might agree with the general sentiment, I strongly disagree with this for Postgres. The new features are important and useful. Postgres is not a very specialized tool, it is a general purpose database that is used in many different ways. It isn't just done and feature-complete, there's still a lot of potential to improve it for various use cases.
You presuppose that Postgres (or all software) is comparable to art, without making or explaining the comparison.
You say that "you must know when to stop painting", but what if the developers behind Postgres know when to stop, and it just isn't finished?
What makes you reason that Postgres is finished?
I'm afraid if postgres stopped adding features now, in 10 years it would no longer be relevant in software development. Most developers would probably jump ship to a more innovative database.
The world changes, which means requirements change. What was once good enough, will be insufficient in the future if you don't update it.
Optimizations kind of are features (sometimes kinda bugs too). Why should those be singled out vs other features?
The primary "bottlenecks" using postgres are different for different people. For you it may be performance. For others it's easier administration. For others it's SQL level query capabilities. Etc.
If you want to move very slowly and deliberately, you can do, depending on your requirements.
Some people need or benefit from things that don't interest you. If that's the case with a RDBMS, why not just... not upgrade?
-- Jack Cohen
Of course, that is a lot more work than posting comment...
Like a painter, you must know when to stop painting. This is a real dilemma all painters face, especially when dealing with watercolor. If anyone has tried painting here, you know exactly the problem - how do you know you're done? It applies to writing and music as well, but it is more evident in visual arts than any other field.
I wish there was a Postgres branch that took previous version and then just applied optimizations and bugfixes. No more.