Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:26:48AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> That said, many discussions and ideas do get shut down, perhaps too
>> early, because of pg_upgrade considerations. If we had a plan to have
>> an incompatible release in the future, those ideas and discussions might
>> be able to progress to a point where we determine it's worth it to take
>> the pain of a non-pg_upgrade-supported release. That's a bit of a
>> stretch, in my view, but I suppose it's possible. Even so though, I
>> would suggest that we put together a wiki page to list out those items
>> and encourage people to add to such a list; perhaps having an item on
>> that list would make discussion about it progress beyond "it breaks
>> pg_upgrade".

> Yes, we should be collecting things we want to do for a pg_upgrade break
> so we can see the list all in one place.

Precisely. We've said right along that we reserve the right to have a
non-upgradable disk format change whenever sufficiently many reasons
accumulate to do that. The way to go about that is to collect projects
that need to be kept on hold for such a release --- not to say we're
going to have such a release and then look for reasons.

regards, tom lane