Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0
От | Justin Clift |
---|---|
Тема | Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 954A2020-828D-47E8-A57E-AEC3643FE390@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0
Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy]9.6 -> 10.0 Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Moving over a conversation from the pgsql-advocacy mailing list. In it Simon (CC'd) raised the issue of potentially creating a backwards-compatibility breaking release at some point in the future, to deal with things that might have no other solution (my wording). Relevant part of that thread there for reference: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLtk1NtaJyXc=hAqX=0k+ku4zfavgVBKfs+_sOr9hepNQ@mail.gmail.com Simon included a short starter list of potentials which might be in that category: * SQL compliant identifiers * Remove RULEs * Change recovery.conf * Change block headers * Retire template0, template1 *Optimise FSM * Add heap metapage * Alter tuple headers et al This still is better placed on -hackers though, so lets have the conversation here to figure out if a "backwards compatibility breaking" release really is needed or not. Hopefully we can get it all done without giving users a reason to consider switching. ;) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: