| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Could postgres be much cleaner if a future release skipped backward compatibility? |
| Date: | 2009-10-20 14:46:10 |
| Message-ID: | 4ADDCD32.80800@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> I think the real issue, though, is that answer
> to Ron's original question is "No". When backward compatibility gets
> in the way of cool new features, that's worth considering. But
> removing backward compatibility just for the sake of removing backward
> compatibility doesn't really buy us anything. It's basically doing
> extra work for no benefit and some possible harm.
>
>
>
Well said.
I am singularly unimpressed by arguments for removing backwards
compatibility features to satisfy someone's passion for neatness, or to
force people to conform to how they think their software should be
managed. I occasionally shake my head in amazement at the willingness of
some people to throw other users under the bus.
Upgrading a database installation is hard enough without us gratuitously
making it harder, and we positively don't want to make people stay on
older releases if they don't have to, I should have thought.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-20 14:48:31 | Re: Re: BUG #5065: pg_ctl start fails as administrator, with "could not locate matching postgres executable" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-20 14:40:13 | Re: Application name patch - v2 |