From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Wanted: jsonb on-disk representation documentation |
Date: | 2014-05-07 13:10:36 |
Message-ID: | CABUevExk_+t5iMDVYvHN3SntG0BDhOiocrn0YpvmQKo-zdMiug@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
> On 2014-05-07 15:00:01 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > On 2014-05-07 08:50:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I don't think it's likely that beta1 will be binary compatible
> with the
> > > > > final version at this point.
> > > >
> > > > I rather think we're not ready for beta1 at this point (but I expect
> > > > to lose that argument).
> > >
> > > Well, I guess it depends on what we define 'beta1' to be. Imo
> evaluating
> > > problematic pieces of new code, locating unfinished pieces is part of
> > > that. I don't see much point in forbidding incompatible changes in
> beta1
> > > personally. That robs th the development cycle of the only period where
> > > users can actually test the new version in a halfway sane manner and
> > > report back with things that apparently broken.
> > >
> > >
> > We need to be very careful to tell people about it though. Preferrably if
> > we *know* a dump/reload will be needed to go beta1->beta2, we should
> > actually document that in the releasenotes of beta1 already. So people
> can
> > make proper plans..
>
> Yes, I think it actually makes sense to add that to *all* beta release
> notes. Even in beta2, although slightly weakened.
> That's not a new thing btw. E.g. 9.3 has had a catversion bump between
> beta1/2:
> git diff 09bd2acbe5ac866ce9..817a89423f429a6a8b --
> src/include/catalog/catversion.h
>
> The more interesting note probably is that there quite possibly won't be
> pg_upgrade'ability...
>
>
Yeah, that's the big thing really.
Requiring pg_upgrade between betas might even be "good" in the sense that
then we get more testing of pg_upgrade :) But requiring a dump/reload is
going to hurt people more.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-07 13:35:06 | Re: PGDLLEXPORTing all GUCs? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-07 13:04:39 | Re: Wanted: jsonb on-disk representation documentation |