Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date: 2013-05-27 23:58:33
Message-ID: 51A3F329.4070709@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05/28/2013 12:41 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I'm happy with that.
>
> I was also thinking about collecting changes not related just to disk
> format, if any exist.
Any wire protocol or syntax changes?

I can't seem to find a "things we want to do in wire protocol v4" doc in
the wiki but I know I've seen occasional discussion of things that can't
be done without protocol changes. Anyone with a better memory than me
able to pitch in?

What'd be required to support in-band query cancellation? Sending
per-statement GUCs (to allow true statement timeout)?

I can't think of any major syntax warts and grandfathered quirks that'd
be really great to get rid of if we had the freedom to break things.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-05-28 00:11:22 Re: pgbench --startup option
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-05-27 23:55:08 Re: adding import in pl/python function