Re: 9.6 -> 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On 4/9/16 2:07 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
>> Do we even have a list of things we'd like to do that would break compatibility? I haven't seen one...
> Simon's email a few weeks ago is probably a decent starting point:
>
>    http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLtk1NtaJyXc=hAqX=0k+ku4zfavgVBKfs+_sOr9hepNQ@mail.gmail.com
>
>  From that:
>
>    * SQL compliant identifiers
>    * Remove RULEs
>    * Change recovery.conf
>    * Change block headers
>    * Retire template0, template1
>    * Optimise FSM
>    * Add heap metapage
>    * Alter tuple headers

I think there needs to be some discussion on a larger list (ie:
-hackers) about this. I had been thinking along the lines of things that
would break pg_upgrade, not stuff that changes user APIs. It would be
difficult enough to get agreement on breaking pg_upgrade; I doubt a
release that breaks practically every tool created for Postgres is going
to get concensus, regardless of the version numbering.

I've tried (unsuccessfully) 3 times now to write an email starting that
discussion. I think this is an important topic that needs to be
discussed, but it's not clear how to even get that ball rolling. Even
without the inevitable flood of "Have you lost your mind?" type replies,
I don't that we even have a robust enough process to make an intelligent
decision. Sure, there could be wiki pages or something about this, but
those won't move discussion by themselves.

Maybe the first question that needs to be answered is how we can
actually move the community to an informed decision about this.

One thought did occur to me though... ISTM that since 10 is a big
milestone that should be celebrated that it's actually a bad target for
a major compatibility break. It would be better to do that with 11. I
think the timing probably works better too, 'cause I'd be amazed if we
were even able to get through that laundry list of issues in 2 years,
let alone 1.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net