Re: 9.6 -> 10.0

On 11 April 2016 at 00:23, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:

> On 4/9/16 2:07 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
>
>> Do we even have a list of things we'd like to do that would break
>>> compatibility? I haven't seen one...
>>>
>> Simon's email a few weeks ago is probably a decent starting point:
>>
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLtk1NtaJyXc=hAqX=0k+ku4zfavgVBKfs+_sOr9hepNQ@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> From that:
>>
>> * SQL compliant identifiers
>> * Remove RULEs
>> * Change recovery.conf
>> * Change block headers
>> * Retire template0, template1
>> * Optimise FSM
>> * Add heap metapage
>> * Alter tuple headers
>>
>
> I think there needs to be some discussion on a larger list (ie: -hackers)
> about this. I had been thinking along the lines of things that would break
> pg_upgrade, not stuff that changes user APIs. It would be difficult enough
> to get agreement on breaking pg_upgrade; I doubt a release that breaks
> practically every tool created for Postgres is going to get concensus,
> regardless of the version numbering.
>

"I'd like to break everything - who agrees?". Obviously if you approach it
from that perspective, no sane person could agree.

If you are already decided one way or the other its not really worth asking.

It could only happen if the benefit outweighed the pain, so needs to be
viewed in a balanced manner.
"Are there some format changes waiting to happen? If so, should we save
them up into one set of changes?"

Anyway, move it to Hackers or if you don't, I will discuss at the next Dev
meeting. I'm not the requestor of those changes, so if people withdraw
their proposals for change, that's up to them.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services