Re: Could postgres be much cleaner if a future release skipped backward compatibility?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Could postgres be much cleaner if a future release skipped backward compatibility?
Date: 2009-10-20 14:46:10
Message-ID: 4ADDCD32.80800@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the real issue, though, is that answer
> to Ron's original question is "No". When backward compatibility gets
> in the way of cool new features, that's worth considering. But
> removing backward compatibility just for the sake of removing backward
> compatibility doesn't really buy us anything. It's basically doing
> extra work for no benefit and some possible harm.
>
>
>

Well said.

I am singularly unimpressed by arguments for removing backwards
compatibility features to satisfy someone's passion for neatness, or to
force people to conform to how they think their software should be
managed. I occasionally shake my head in amazement at the willingness of
some people to throw other users under the bus.

Upgrading a database installation is hard enough without us gratuitously
making it harder, and we positively don't want to make people stay on
older releases if they don't have to, I should have thought.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-10-20 14:48:31 Re: Re: BUG #5065: pg_ctl start fails as administrator, with "could not locate matching postgres executable"
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-20 14:40:13 Re: Application name patch - v2