On 2016-04-12 11:25:21 -0700, Josh berkus wrote: > Here's the features I can imagine being worth major backwards > compatibility breaks: > > 1. Fully pluggable storage with a clean API. > > 2. Total elimination of VACUUM or XID freezing > > 3. Fully transparent-to-the user MM replication/clustering or sharding. > > 4. Perfect partitioning (i.e. transparent to the user, supports keys & > joins, supports expressions on partition key, etc.) > > 5. Transparent upgrade-in-place (i.e. allowing 10.2 to use 10.1's tables > without pg_upgrade or other modification). > > 6. Fully pluggable parser/executor with a good API > > That's pretty much it. I can't imagine anything else which would > justify imposing a huge upgrade barrier on users. And, I'll point out, > that in the above list: > > * nobody is currently working on anything in core except #4. > > * we don't *know* that any of the above items will require a backwards > compatibility break.
none but 2) seem likely to require a substantial compatibility break. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
