Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 9 Apr 2016, at 19:50, Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> wrote:
> On 4/7/16 1:54 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
<snip>
>> By hand-wavy, you mean not fully worked out? Yes, neither the pros and
>> cons have been worked out in detail, so opposing the idea is on the same
>> shaky ground. How then to proceed?
>
> Do we even have a list of things we'd like to do that would break compatibility? I haven't seen one...

Simon's email a few weeks ago is probably a decent starting point:

  http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLtk1NtaJyXc=hAqX=0k+ku4zfavgVBKfs+_sOr9hepNQ@mail.gmail.com

From that:

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

+ 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