On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > On 10/11/2012 03:59 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I'm also not real keen on the idea that someone could dump a 9.2 >> database and be unable to load it into 9.3 because of the DDL trigger, >> especially if they might not encounter it until halfway through a >> restore. That seems rather user-hostile to me. >> >> Also, how would you picture that working with pg_upgrade? >> >> RULEs are a major feature we've had for over a decade. > > > That nobody in the right mind would use in production for YEARS. That said > there is a very real problem here. For a very, very long time the > recommended way (wrong way in fact) to do partitioning was based on rules. > Now, those in the know immediately said, "WTF" but I bet you that a lot of > people that we don't know about are using rules for partitioning. > > We definitely need a warning period that this is going away. That said, I > don't know that we need a whole release cycle. If we start announcing now > (or before the new year) that in 9.3 we will not have rules, that gives > people 9-10 months to deal with the issue and that is assuming that we are > dealing with early adopters, which we aren't because early adopters are not > going to be using rules.
My experience suggests that only ample annoyance for at least one full release cycle will provide a low-impact switch. This annoyance must not be able to be turned off. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
