Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> and it's entirely possible that we'll be able to implement SMs without
> breaking pgupgrade.

I'd certainly hope so..  It's certainly not obvious, to me at least,
why a new SM or supporting any of those features would require
breaking pg_upgrade.  Perhaps there's something I'm not seeing there,
but it had better be a *really* good reason..

btw, has anyone posted the SM API proposal..?  Unfortunately, I think I
had to leave before that was hashed out..

> First, let's have a few features for which breaking binary compatibility
> is a necessity or a clear benefit.  Then we'll schedule when to break them.

Agreed.
Thanks,
    Stephen