| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Date: | 2013-05-25 17:57:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ3MaWeU2TUkgVVSxB0zLukLd75=okXTG_xh2XED6mxdw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25 May 2013 18:13, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 10:39 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> The constraint on such changes is that we've decided that we must have
>> an upgrade path from release to release.
>
> Is this proposal only relaxing the binary upgrade requirement, or would
> it also relax other compatibility requirements, such as language and API
> compatibility?
I'm suggesting that as many as possible changes we would like to make
can happen in one release. This is for the benefit of users, so we
dont make every release a source of incompatibilities.
And that release should be the first one where we have online upgrade
possible, which is one after next.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Nelson | 2013-05-25 18:55:09 | Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2013-05-25 17:13:04 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |