On 04/05/2016 06:03 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 4/5/16 9:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I'm still in favour of a compatibility break, planned in advance and it
>> makes most sense to call that 10.0
>
> My view is that's just not an option. You'd be putting a huge burden on
> a lot of users that have never had it before, and putting some of our
> users in the position of abandoning Postgres altogether (I'm pretty sure
> there are still users where having 2 copies of their database just isn't
> an option).
>
> (And just so no one thinks I'm some pg_upgrade zealot, I've never
> actually used it...)
There will be a compatibility break, it will have to happen. That said,
there are ways to mitigate a good portion of the concerns.
1. Make sure the release before the compatibility break is supported for
longer than usual (say 7 instead of 5 years)
2. Announce the compatibility break AT LEAST 2 versions before it happens
3. Make sure we have some kind of utility that can deal with it, this
might be something that rewrites the pages or perhaps we rely on logical
replication?
And really, if we are going to lose users for doing what's best for the
users... they aren't users. They are bus riders in the night, looking
for a destination they will never find, with a heart heavy with remorse
because they refuse to commit to anything.
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
