| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dimitri Fontaine" <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>,"Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, "Amit Kapila" <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, "Boszormenyi Zoltan" <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, "Hari Babu" <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>,"Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Passing connection string to pg_basebackup |
| Date: | 2013-01-20 17:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20130120170051.108980@gmx.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I heartily agree. I can say from firsthand experience that when minor
> releases break things for customers (and they do), the customers get
> *really* cranky. Based on recent experience, I think we should be
> tightening our standards for what gets back-patched, not loosening
> them.
+1
Any change in a minor release which causes working production code
to break very quickly and seriously erodes confidence in the
ability to apply a minor release without extensive (and expensive)
testing. When that confidence erordes, users stay on old minor
releases for extended periods -- often until they hit one of the
bugs which was fixed in a minor release.
We need to be very conservative about back-patching any changes in
user-visible behavior.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2013-01-20 17:29:55 | Re: Thinking about WITH CHECK OPTION for views |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2013-01-20 16:56:53 | Re: Reporting hba lines |