On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> There are a number of changes we'd probably like to make to the way >> things work in Postgres. This thread is not about discussing what >> those are, just to say that requirements exist and have been discussed >> in various threads over time. >> >> The constraint on such changes is that we've decided that we must have >> an upgrade path from release to release. >> >> So I'd like to make a formal suggestion of a plan for how we cope with this: >> >> 1. Implement online upgrade in 9.4 via the various facilities we have >> in-progress. That looks completely possible. >> >> 2. Name the next release after that 10.0 (would have been 9.5). We >> declare now that >> a) 10.0 will support on-line upgrade from 9.4 (only) >> b) various major incompatibilities will be introduced in 10.0 - the >> change in release number will indicate to everybody that is the case >> c) agree that there will be no pg_upgrade patch from 9.4 to 10.0, so >> that we will not be constrained by that >> >> This plan doesn't presume any particular change. Each change would >> need to be discussed on a separate thread, with a separate case for >> each. All I'm suggesting is that we have a coherent plan for the >> timing of such changes, so we can bundle them together into one >> release. >> >> By doing this now we give ourselves lots of time to plan changes that >> will see us good for another decade. If we don't do this, then we >> simply risk losing the iniative by continuing to support legacy >> formats and approaches. > > Huh. I don't think that bumping the version number to 10.0 vs 9.5 is > justification to introduce breaking changes. In fact, I would rather > see 10.0 be the version where we formally stop doing that. I > understand that some stuff needs to be improved but it often doesn't > seem to be worth the cost in the long run.
Please disregard this comment -- I didn't realize the topic was regarding on disk format -- I mistakenly though it was opening the door for user level feature changes. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
