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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date
Msg-id 20130528212002.GD26313@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 02:09:05PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 09:17:50AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> > OK, I have added a section to the TODO list for this:
> 
> >     Desired changes that would prevent upgrades with pg_upgrade
> >         32-bit page checksums 
> 
> > Are there any others?
> 
> GiST indexes really oughta have a metapage so there can be a version
> number in them.
> 
> Also, if we are going to unify hstore and json, it'd be nice if we could
> change the existing binary representation of hstore (per discussions at
> Oleg and Teodor's talk --- this will be moot if we invent a new core
> type, but it'd be better not to have to).
> 
> There are probably some other data-type-specific cleanups we could
> make, but I have to go get on an airplane so no time to think about it.

OK, GiST and hstore added to TODO list.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0