> I don't think you're listening, none of those things are problems and > so not user hostile.
Having an upgrade fail for mysterious reasons with a cryptic error message the user doesn't understand isn't user-hostile? Wow, you must have a very understanding group of users. Lemme try to make it clear to you exactly how user-hostile you're being: 1. User downloads 9.2 today. 2. User builds a new application. 3. User finds the doc page on RULEs, decides they're a nifty concept. 4. New application includes some RULEs. 5. 9.3 comes out. 6. User schedules a downtime for upgrading. 7. In the middle of the upgrade, at 2am, they get a cryptic warning, and dump/restore fails. 8. User has to rollback the upgrade. 9. User googles a bunch, eventually finds information on the trigger. 10. User realizes that a bunch of their code, written not 6 months before, needs to be refactored now. 11. User switches to MongoDB in disgust. I realize you weren't around when we removed row OIDs, but I was *still* getting flack from that in 2008. And we lost entire OSS projects to other databases because of removing row OIDs. And those were marked deprecated for 3 years before we removed them. > That is exactly what I proposed. No, it's not. You proposed inserting a SURPRISE! break-your-application trigger in 9.3 ... 10 months from now. With zero warning to our general user base. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
