Re: First draft of Beta announcement

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)berkus(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> > * WAL support for Hash Indexes
> >
> > Crash safe Hash Indexes or ACID compliant Hash Indexes.
>
> Crash safe is good.
>

Also worth having something there about them now being replication safe?
"Crash and replication safe" sounds a bit weird though, but something along
that line?

> > Version 10 will have an unusually high number of backwards-incompatible
> > changes. It is critical that all users test it against their
> > applications and platforms as soon as possible.
> >
> > I don't think we need to say anything more than:
> >
> > Version 10 has a high number of backwards-incompatible changes. For a
> > list of these changes please see the [Release Notes](link to release
> > notes).
>
> I disagree. As a rule, we don't break backwards compatibility so pg 10
> is going to be a shock to a lot of people. We really haven't seen this
> quantity of breakage since 8.3, which was released nine years ago, long
> before the majority of our current users were using Postgres. Given
> that -- because of partiitoning and logical replication -- many users
> will want to upgrade to 10 the month it comes out, I think we need to
> point out *in detail* why they will want to do extra testing. At a
> minimum, this includes the change in version numbering, the renaming of
> xlog to wal, and dropping support for FEBE 1.0.
>

None of those are very likely to break *applications*.

Most applications don't talk to the xlog/wal functions. DBA tools and
scripts and whatnot *do*, but it is probably worth distinguishing that from
applications, because they're also usually different ownership within
organisations. It is likely to break more or less all of those though.

And I really doubt protocol v1.0 dropping is going to hit a lot of people.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>