Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 06:42:40PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> That's exactly my thinking. If it's going to be *feature based* there is a
> fairly significant risk of this happening.
>
> I think the only reason to not do a 10.0 is if we want to stick to the "we
> switch when we break backwards compatibility". But that also means that if we
> succeed in not breaking backwards compatibility in a bad way (say we solve the
> problem of transparent page format upgrading, or just the logical replication
> based upgrading or whatever), then we never bump. Which *also* doesn't work
> very well.

If we are going to focus on update method _change_ rather than just
upgrade _breakage_, the inclusion of pg_logical in Postgres core would
be a reason to go to 10.0 because it allows zero-downtime upgrades. I
think this would be larger upgrade-wise than anything in 9.6.

Currently users are using high-overhead trigger-based replication to
achieve zero-downtime upgrades, and using streaming replication with
pg_logical would be a game-changer.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +