Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)
Date
Msg-id 9749.941512524@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Function-manager redesign: second draft (long)  (wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
List pgsql-hackers
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>     There is a new aspect in this discussion since then. The  new
>     corporation PostgreSQL Inc. offers commercial support for our
>     database (look at www.pgsql.com). If they offer support, they
>     must  support  older  releases  as  well,  so  they  need  to
>     backpatch already.

Yes, but who's the "them" here?  If PostgreSQL Inc. has any warm
bodies other than the existing group of developers, I sure haven't
heard from them...

I agree 100% with Jan's basic point: we must provide a degree of
backwards compatibility from release to release.  In some cases
that might create enough pain to be worth debating, but in this
particular case it seems like the choice is a no-brainer.  We just
leave in the transition fmgr code that we're going to write anyway.
I don't understand why it even got to be a topic of discussion.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Backend crashes (6.5.2 linux)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Backend terminated abnormally