On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 09:18:11AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:53:37AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > I consider this thread to be not thought-through, obviously. > > > > My proposal has had lots of serious consideration, but that is not the > > topic of this thread. > > > > The title of the thread is a general one, with a clear objective. > > > > I'm looking for a way forwards that allows us to introduce the changes > > that many have proposed and which regrettably result in > > incompatibilities. If we have no plan I think its likely it will never > > happen and it is currently blocking useful change. > > > > Please explain what you consider to be a better plan, so we can judge > > all proposals together. > > I agree with the idea of using logical replication as a way to do > pg_upgrade version-breaking releases. What I don't know is what > incompatible changes are pending that would require this.
Sorry I was unclear. When I said "not thought-through", I meant, you need to start with the _reason_ we need to break pg_upgrade in an upcoming version, then we can start to plan how to do it. The logical replication idea is a good one for getting us through pg_upgrade version-breaking releases. I am fine with breaking pg_upgrade, but I just don't see the pending reason at this point. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
