Re: procpid? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: procpid?
Date
Msg-id 11AD4349-0870-45D6-B7CE-5C992FB13277@nasby.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: procpid?  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: procpid?
Re: procpid?
List pgsql-hackers
On Jun 13, 2011, at 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If we were going to make changes like this, I'd suggest we save them
> up in a big bag for when we change major version number. Everybody in
> the world thinks that PostgreSQL v8 is compatible across all versions
> (8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4), and it will be same with v9. That way we
> would still have forward progress, but in more sensible sized steps.
> Otherwise we just break the code annually for all the people that
> support us. If we had a more stable environment for tools vendors,
> maybe people wouldn't need to be manually typing procpid anyway...

Wouldn't it be better still to have both the new and old columns available for a while? That would produce the minimum
amountof disruption to tools, etc. The only downside is some potential confusion, but that would just serve to drive
peopleto the documentation to see why there were two fields, where they would find out one was deprecated. 
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: ITYM DROP TABLE
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: procpid?