Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 570BC2C3.3040901@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 (Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.6 -> 10.0
Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On 04/10/2016 04:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >> From that: >> >> * SQL compliant identifiers >> * Remove RULEs >> * Change recovery.conf >> * Change block headers >> * Retire template0, template1 >> * Optimise FSM >> * Add heap metapage >> * Alter tuple headers > [snip] > > I've tried (unsuccessfully) 3 times now to write an email starting that > discussion. I think this is an important topic that needs to be > discussed, but it's not clear how to even get that ball rolling. Even > without the inevitable flood of "Have you lost your mind?" type replies, > I don't that we even have a robust enough process to make an intelligent > decision. Sure, there could be wiki pages or something about this, but > those won't move discussion by themselves. > > Maybe the first question that needs to be answered is how we can > actually move the community to an informed decision about this. > What is the problem we are trying to solve? SQL compliant indentifiers? Is there a sizeable user base requesting this? Remove Rules? Why? Retire template0, template1? Why? I think those are the questions we need answered. Having a list of what might be done in the future to break compatibility without a statement as to the problem they cause or how the process will fix that problem is basically hand waiving. (note there are a couple that are obvious, heap metapage, optimise FSM etc...) Sincerely, JD -- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: