From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pageinspect's infomask and infomask2 as smallint |
Date: | 2011-02-15 16:15:54 |
Message-ID: | 4D5AA6BA.3060601@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.02.2011 18:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> What risk? And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
>>> that should work for at least 99% of users. AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
>>> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".
>
>> I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1,
>> because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release
>> upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not
>> particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk
>> breaking things in minor releases".
Right, that's what I meant.
> No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't
> think anybody was). What's under discussion is how much effort to put
> into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the
> function installed.
Oh, never mind then.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-02-15 16:29:02 | Re: Add support for logging the current role |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-02-15 16:13:08 | Re: Add support for logging the current role |