On 11 October 2012 23:59, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> With the DDL trigger, we're able to do that faster. The idea is you
>> can still delete it if you need compatibility, so we get the message
>> across without an extra release and without an annoying GUC (etc).
> You're seeing these things as bugs. I see them as features. And we
> don't need a GUC if you can't turn the warning off.
> I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2
> database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the DDL trigger,
> especially if they might not encounter it until halfway through a
> restore. That seems rather user-hostile to me.
I don't think you're listening, none of those things are problems and
so not user hostile.
I've proposed a trigger that is there by default but which is *removable*.
So you can turn it off, and yet there is no GUC.
> Also, how would you picture that working with pg_upgrade?
If RULEs are in use, we automatically delete the trigger.
> RULEs are a major feature we've had for over a decade. We've discussed
> deprecating them on -hackers, but believe it or don't, most of our users
> don't read -hackers. We need to warn people, loudly and repeatedly, for
> at *least* a year and a half before removing RULEs.
That is exactly what I proposed.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-10-12 06:47:26|
|Subject: Re: Deprecating RULES|
|Previous:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2012-10-12 06:34:22|
|Subject: Re: Switching timeline over streaming replication|