On 2014-05-07 15:00:01 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
>
> > On 2014-05-07 08:50:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
> > wrote:
> > > > I don't think it's likely that beta1 will be binary compatible with the
> > > > final version at this point.
> > >
> > > I rather think we're not ready for beta1 at this point (but I expect
> > > to lose that argument).
> >
> > Well, I guess it depends on what we define 'beta1' to be. Imo evaluating
> > problematic pieces of new code, locating unfinished pieces is part of
> > that. I don't see much point in forbidding incompatible changes in beta1
> > personally. That robs th the development cycle of the only period where
> > users can actually test the new version in a halfway sane manner and
> > report back with things that apparently broken.
> >
> >
> We need to be very careful to tell people about it though. Preferrably if
> we *know* a dump/reload will be needed to go beta1->beta2, we should
> actually document that in the releasenotes of beta1 already. So people can
> make proper plans..
Yes, I think it actually makes sense to add that to *all* beta release
notes. Even in beta2, although slightly weakened.
That's not a new thing btw. E.g. 9.3 has had a catversion bump between
beta1/2:
git diff 09bd2acbe5ac866ce9..817a89423f429a6a8b -- src/include/catalog/catversion.h
The more interesting note probably is that there quite possibly won't be
pg_upgrade'ability...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
