Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 09:18:11AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:53:37AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > I consider this thread to be not thought-through, obviously.
> >
> > My proposal has had lots of serious consideration, but that is not the
> > topic of this thread.
> >
> > The title of the thread is a general one, with a clear objective.
> >
> > I'm looking for a way forwards that allows us to introduce the changes
> > that many have proposed and which regrettably result in
> > incompatibilities. If we have no plan I think its likely it will never
> > happen and it is currently blocking useful change.
> >
> > Please explain what you consider to be a better plan, so we can judge
> > all proposals together.
>
> I agree with the idea of using logical replication as a way to do
> pg_upgrade version-breaking releases. What I don't know is what
> incompatible changes are pending that would require this.

Sorry I was unclear. When I said "not thought-through", I meant, you
need to start with the _reason_ we need to break pg_upgrade in an
upcoming version, then we can start to plan how to do it. The logical
replication idea is a good one for getting us through pg_upgrade
version-breaking releases.

I am fine with breaking pg_upgrade, but I just don't see the pending
reason at this point.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +