On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Justin Clift <jus...@postgresql.org> wrote: > 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.
A couple of points here: *) I don't think having a version number that starts with 10 instead of 9 magically fixes backwards compatibility problems and I think that's a dangerous precedent to set unless we're willing to fork development and support version 9 indefinitely including major release versions. *) Compatibility issues at the SQL level have to be taken much more seriously than other things (like internal layouts or .conf issues). *) We need to do an honest cost benefit analysis before breaking things. Code refactors placed on your users puts an enormous cost that is often underestimated. I have some fairly specific examples of the costs related to the text cast removal for example. It's not a pretty picture. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
