| From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Date: | 2014-09-01 14:59:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAASwCXf0MPtKVFvj76HxjC1tAngGnCBSEKgu0Y0+9HQRu=eRMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm just saying it's much less probable you can add new features to
>> plpgsql than to plpgsql2, as you have to take into account the risk of
>> breaking compatibility.
>
> That's just a difference of one release. The release after the set of
> problems is nearly identical.
That's not true. The first release (plpgsql -> plpgsql2) will be a
major release.
After that, we can do minor releases for the following X years, until
we possible need for a new major version.
Each minor release would be guaranteed not to break any backwards compatibility.
plpgsql -> plpgsql2 would be the single giant leap we take into the future.
I think this reasoning is quite compatible with the versioning policy
of the project in general, where we distinguish between major and
minor releases.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-09-01 15:16:17 | Re: PL/pgSQL 2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-09-01 14:56:06 | Re: psql \watch versus \timing |