Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: > On tis, 2011-06-14 at 13:50 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> There are real problems with the idea of having one release where we >> break everything that we want to break - mostly from a process >> standpoint. We aren't always good at being organized and disciplined, >> and coming up with a multi-year plan to break everything all at once >> in 2014 for release in 2015 may be difficult, because it requires a >> consensus on release management to hold together for years, and >> sometimes we can't even manage "days".
> I have had this fantasy of a break-everything release for a long time as > well, but frankly, experience from other projects such as Python 3, Perl > 6, KDE 4, Samba 4, add-yours-here, indicates that such things might not > work out so well. > OK, some of those were rewrites as well as interface changes, but the > effect visible to the end user is mostly the same. Good point. I think the case that has actually been discussed is the idea of saving up binary-compatibility breaks (on-disk format changes). That seems sensible. It doesn't create a bigger problem for users, since a dump/reload is a dump/reload no matter how many individual format changes happened underneath. But we should be wary of applying that approach to application-visible incompatibilities. As far as Greg's proposal is concerned, I don't see how a proposed addition of two columns would justify renaming an existing column. Additions should not break any sanely-implemented application, but renamings certainly will. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers