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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMJ3MaWeU2TUkgVVSxB0zLukLd75=okXTG_xh2XED6mxdw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 25 May 2013 18:13, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-25 at 10:39 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> The constraint on such changes is that we've decided that we must have
>> an upgrade path from release to release.
>
> Is this proposal only relaxing the binary upgrade requirement, or would
> it also relax other compatibility requirements, such as language and API
> compatibility?

I'm suggesting that as many as possible changes we would like to make
can happen in one release. This is for the benefit of users, so we
dont make every release a source of incompatibilities.

And that release should be the first one where we have online upgrade
possible, which is one after next.

--Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Next
From: Jon Nelson
Date:
Subject: Re: fallocate / posix_fallocate for new WAL file creation (etc...)