FAQ

On 27 May 2013 15:36, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:26:48AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
That said, many discussions and ideas do get shut down, perhaps too
early, because of pg_upgrade considerations. If we had a plan to have
an incompatible release in the future, those ideas and discussions might
be able to progress to a point where we determine it's worth it to take
the pain of a non-pg_upgrade-supported release. That's a bit of a
stretch, in my view, but I suppose it's possible. Even so though, I
would suggest that we put together a wiki page to list out those items
and encourage people to add to such a list; perhaps having an item on
that list would make discussion about it progress beyond "it breaks
pg_upgrade".
Yes, we should be collecting things we want to do for a pg_upgrade break
so we can see the list all in one place.
Precisely. We've said right along that we reserve the right to have a
non-upgradable disk format change whenever sufficiently many reasons
accumulate to do that.
I'm happy with that.

I was also thinking about collecting changes not related just to disk
format, if any exist.
The way to go about that is to collect projects
that need to be kept on hold for such a release --- not to say we're
going to have such a release and then look for reasons.
Agreed.

I was trying to establish a realistic timeline for such events, so
that the planning was able to be taken seriously. Yes, it wass a "work
backwards" or "what if" type of planning. But now we have a rough plan
of how it might look, collecting ideas can begin.

--
  Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase