|From:||Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|To:||PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
Moving over a conversation from the pgsql-advocacy mailing list. In it
Simon (CC'd) raised the issue of potentially creating a backwards-compatibility
breaking release at some point in the future, to deal with things that
might have no other solution (my wording).
Relevant part of that thread there for reference:
Simon included a short starter list of potentials which might be in
* SQL compliant identifiers
* Remove RULEs
* Change recovery.conf
* Change block headers
* Retire template0, template1
* Optimise FSM
* Add heap metapage
* Alter tuple headers
This still is better placed on -hackers though, so lets have the
conversation here to figure out if a "backwards compatibility breaking"
release really is needed or not.
Hopefully we can get it all done without giving users a reason to consider
Regards and best wishes,
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
|Next Message||Robert Haas||2016-04-11 16:42:18||Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups|
|Previous Message||Robert Haas||2016-04-11 16:16:39||plan for beta1 & open issues|