Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> writes:
> Moving over a conversation from the pgsql-advocacy mailing list. In it
> Simon (CC'd) raised the issue of potentially creating a backwards-compatibility
> breaking release at some point in the future, to deal with things that
> might have no other solution (my wording).
>
> Relevant part of that thread there for reference:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLtk1NtaJyXc=hAqX=0k+ku4zfavgVBKfs+_sOr9hepNQ@mail.gmail.com
>
> Simon included a short starter list of potentials which might be in
> that category:
>
> * SQL compliant identifiers
> * Remove RULEs
> * Change recovery.conf
> * Change block headers
> * Retire template0, template1
> * Optimise FSM
> * Add heap metapage
> * Alter tuple headers
> et al
>
> This still is better placed on -hackers though, so lets have the
> conversation here to figure out if a "backwards compatibility breaking"
> release really is needed or not.
>
> Hopefully we can get it all done without giving users a reason to consider
> switching. ;)
I'm sure this won't be a popular suggestion, but in the interest of
advocating for more cryptography: if we land GSSAPI auth+encryption, I'd
like the auth-only codepath to go away.
