Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 11 Apr 2016, at 17:11, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> (note there are a couple that are obvious, heap metapage, optimise FSM
>> etc...)
>
> But it's not obvious why those things require breaking compatibility,
> and pgsql-advocacy is not the right mailing list to discuss that.
> There has been no recent discussion of any of this on pgsql-hackers.

Good point.  Just emailed -hackers with a starter stub for it, so it can
be discussed there:

  http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/954A2020-828D-47E8-A57E-AEC3643FE390@postgresql.org

;)

+ Justin

--
"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