On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:26:48AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * 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".
Yes, we should be collecting things we want to do for a pg_upgrade break
so we can see the list all in one place.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
