Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date
Msg-id 20130527122648.GI8597@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
List pgsql-hackers
* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> If I had to _guess_, I would say users who are using the default storage
> manager would still be able to use pg_upgrade, and those using
> non-default storage managers perhaps can't.

That would make sense.

> But, again, this is all so hypothetical that it doesn't seem worth
> talking about.

Having a specific list of "these are the things we want to change, and
why, and here is why pg_upgrade can't support it" would be much more
useful to work from, I agree.

That said, many discussions and ideas do get shut down, perhaps too
early, because of pg_upgrade considerations.  If we had a plan to have
an incompatible release in the future, those ideas and discussions might
be able to progress to a point where we determine it's worth it to take
the pain of a non-pg_upgrade-supported release.  That's a bit of a
stretch, in my view, but I suppose it's possible.  Even so though, I
would suggest that we put together a wiki page to list out those items
and encourage people to add to such a list; perhaps having an item on
that list would make discussion about it progress beyond "it breaks
pg_upgrade".
Thanks,
    Stephen

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Process memory architecture