Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:29:07AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On 04/10/2016 04:23 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
>
> >> From that:
> >>
> >> * SQL compliant identifiers
> >> * Remove RULEs
> >> * Change recovery.conf
> >> * Change block headers
> >> * Retire template0, template1
> >> * Optimise FSM
> >> * Add heap metapage
> >> * Alter tuple headers
> >
>
> [snip]
>
...
> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
>
> SQL compliant indentifiers? Is there a sizeable user base requesting this?
>
> Remove Rules? Why?
>
> Retire template0, template1? Why?
>
> I think those are the questions we need answered. Having a list of what
> might be done in the future to break compatibility without a statement as to
> the problem they cause or how the process will fix that problem is basically
> hand waiving.
>
> (note there are a couple that are obvious, heap metapage, optimise FSM
> etc...)

I was worried that pg_upgrade would block on-disk format changes and
cause a huge pile up of non-optimal storage requirements, but after
seven years (since 2009) is that the biggest list we can come up with?
As far as I am concerned, it doesn't come anywhere near requiring all
users to dump/restore.

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

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +