* Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> [091019 18:45]: > Ron Mayer <rm...@cheapcomplexdevices.com> writes: > > Would postgres get considerably cleaner if a hypothetical 9.0 release > > skipped backward compatibility and removed anything that's only > > maintained for historical reasons? > > Yeah, and our user community would get a lot smaller too :-( > > Actually, I think any attempt to do that would result in a fork, > and a consequent splintering of the community. We can get away > with occasionally cleaning up individual problematic behaviors > (example: implicit casts to text), but any sort of all-at-once > breakage would result in a lot of people Just Saying No.
I don't know... What if this hypothetical "baggage-free" version came with configurable syncrhonous master-slave replication, writable CTEs, and everything ;-) Couple it with a libpq/protocol increase that allows fixing of the various warts of the current connection (like encoding, etc), and you still have a *very* attractive platform... And then just do the rename official to Postgres, and people can support both PostgreSQL, warts and all, or Postgres, the super-duper database-to-rule-them-all... ;-) /me crawls back into his hole a. -- Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god, ai...@highrise.ca command like a king, http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
