| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Date: | 2013-05-27 01:18:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20130527011841.GB8597@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
> and it's entirely possible that we'll be able to implement SMs without
> breaking pgupgrade.
I'd certainly hope so.. It's certainly not obvious, to me at least,
why a new SM or supporting any of those features would require
breaking pg_upgrade. Perhaps there's something I'm not seeing there,
but it had better be a *really* good reason..
btw, has anyone posted the SM API proposal..? Unfortunately, I think I
had to leave before that was hashed out..
> First, let's have a few features for which breaking binary compatibility
> is a necessity or a clear benefit. Then we'll schedule when to break them.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-27 01:49:34 | Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2013-05-27 01:10:48 | Re: MVCC catalog access |