Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog

On 08/29/2016 08:07 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Also as a note to the idea that we make break things for external user
>> space; the next version being v10 is the exact time to do that.
>
> Let's please drop this meme that "v10 is a great time to break things".
> We don't want this to be any worse than any other major-version upgrade.

The moment you break backward compatibility, it will be worse. We are
talking about breaking backward compatibility. So let's just accept it
as it is, there is a mentality about a major jump. A major jump
(9.6->10) is *the* perfect time to make world changing, changes.

> If we throw thirty different major incompatibilities in at once, we're
> going to be hearing about how painful it was for the next decade, even if
> any one of them individually would have been manageable. Or, if we make
> the pain factor too high, users will simply not upgrade, and we'll be
> faced with demands that we support 9.6 forever.

Whiners always find a reason to whine.

Let's be on two feet here. I am not saying we should jump to using json
notation for our next release. I am simply stating that any largish
(even if it is a small patch) changes to expected behavior should be
done with care. We have a window because no matter how much you yell, I
yell, Magnus yells, or anybody else yells; the telling story will be,
"10.0 is a huge jump from 9.6". Most people *WOULD NOT CARE* if we only
changed one thing. They care that we jumped 4 releases. That type of
communication implies BIG CHANGES.

Whether you like it or not. Whether I like it or not.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.