| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: procpid? |
| Date: | 2011-06-14 15:44:10 |
| Message-ID: | 11AD4349-0870-45D6-B7CE-5C992FB13277@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 13, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If we were going to make changes like this, I'd suggest we save them
> up in a big bag for when we change major version number. Everybody in
> the world thinks that PostgreSQL v8 is compatible across all versions
> (8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4), and it will be same with v9. That way we
> would still have forward progress, but in more sensible sized steps.
> Otherwise we just break the code annually for all the people that
> support us. If we had a more stable environment for tools vendors,
> maybe people wouldn't need to be manually typing procpid anyway...
Wouldn't it be better still to have both the new and old columns available for a while? That would produce the minimum amount of disruption to tools, etc. The only downside is some potential confusion, but that would just serve to drive people to the documentation to see why there were two fields, where they would find out one was deprecated.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | richhguard-monotone | 2011-06-14 15:47:16 | Re: PATCH: CreateComments: use explicit indexing for ``values'' |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-14 15:25:08 | Re: Patch: add GiST support for BOX @> POINT queries |