Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> One issue is that while we all want WAL and new query structure and
> stuff like that, we don't have end users asking for this repeatedly.
> What we do have them asking for is foreign keys.
>
> The major issue seems to be that the 7.0 release is going to have major
> incompatibilities for prior releases in the area of date types, and
> stuff like that. With all we are doing, I am not sure that is even
> going to work because we can't synchonize all the incompatibility stuff
> for one release.
>
> Maybe we just call it 7.0, and have some more incompatibility stuff in
> 7.1. Seems waiting for some .0 release is not going to work, unless we
> scrap the Feb 1 beta and just wait for all new stuff to be finished, but
> that seems worse than having a 7.1 that contains some incompatiblities.

Now that you say it,

not just maybe, definitely call it 7.0!

As said on the phone, the deferred trigger queue required for
the FOREIGN KEY stuff delays all AFTER ROW trigger for
execution at least past the entire statement.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #