Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 22 March 2016 at 21:08, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > It would make more sense to declare a release 10.0 in advance at the May
> dev
> > meeting, then work to put in a whole load of incompatibilities all into
> one
> > release. i.e. a planned compatibility break, which is what everybody will
> > think we have done if we declare 10.0. They will then be surprised if
> that
> > all happens in 10.1 or some other time.
> > My list of incompatibilities would be
> > * SQL compliant identifiers
> > * Remove RULEs
> > * Change recovery.conf
> > * Change block headers
> > * Retire template0, template1
> > * Optimise FSM
> > * Add heap metapage
> > * Alter tuple headers
> > et al
>
> A lot of these strike me as things that have never been discussed and
> that there's no consensus to actually do.

All of the above have been discussed as some point in last decade as I
recall, no doubt many more I forget. I made a point to add the one you had
suggested, as well as suggestions from Heikki and others.

I didn't claim there was consensus to do any of them, but I'm pretty sure
they need to be mentioned first to find out which ones would be agreeable.

"It could even lead to a fork". As could anything, I guess. Who would lead
this fork, and why?

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services