| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 22:04:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_XGtjso5mM__eACOx_WZZDnyVaipFfy8arRB0aRKetpRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For the most part, we've been very successful in *not* breaking
> backward compatibility and I think we owe a good part of our success
> to that. When we've deviated from that principle (ahem, 8.3) it's
> been very painful, and I can't imagine why we'd want to go through
> that again, unless we just have a masochistic streak.
I agree that we shouldn't go through that again unless we have a very
good reason, which I don't think we do in the case of breaking on-disk
compatibility -- it isn't particularly burdening us. I disagree with
the implication that the 8.3 changes were a bad decision at the time.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-04-06 22:30:04 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-06 21:56:46 | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |