Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

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
Date: 2016-04-11 16:39:07
Message-ID: 954A2020-828D-47E8-A57E-AEC3643FE390@postgresql.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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
that category:

* SQL compliant identifiers
* Remove RULEs
* Change recovery.conf
* Change block headers
* Retire template0, template1
* Optimise FSM
* Add heap metapage
* Alter tuple headers
et al

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
switching. ;)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

"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


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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