Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 04/05/2016 06:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> And really, if we are going to lose users for doing what's best for the
>> users... they aren't users. They are bus riders in the night, looking for a
>> destination they will never find, with a heart heavy with remorse because
>> they refuse to commit to anything.
>
> Oh, come on. Are you seriously going to blame users for not being
> zealous enough to endure any and all compatibility breaks we might
> inflict on them? That seems like blaming the victim. People are
> going to pick the tools that are the easiest to use, and
> backward-compatibility is part of that. Ease of use is not a feature
> of which we have so much that we can afford to squander it.

Perhaps my humour was a little abstract.

I was actually trying to give our users credit. Our users know that we
wouldn't break compatibility unless we absolutely saw a reason for it
and that we planned for it. Lastly, that we would show them the respect
they deserve by communicating with them in a way that gives them time to
plan for something like that.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.