Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date: 2013-05-27 12:26:48
Message-ID: 20130527122648.GI8597@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> If I had to _guess_, I would say users who are using the default storage
> manager would still be able to use pg_upgrade, and those using
> non-default storage managers perhaps can't.

That would make sense.

> But, again, this is all so hypothetical that it doesn't seem worth
> talking about.

Having a specific list of "these are the things we want to change, and
why, and here is why pg_upgrade can't support it" would be much more
useful to work from, I agree.

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".

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2013-05-27 12:26:53 Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture
Previous Message Atri Sharma 2013-05-27 12:23:42 Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture