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+_sor9he...@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. ;) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
