On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> > Simon seems to value backward-compatibility more than the average >> > hackers poster. ?The lack of complaints about 9.1 I think means that the >> > hackers decision of _not_ providing a swich was the right one. >> >> So its been out 1 month and you think that is sufficient time for us >> to decide that there are no user complaints about SSI? I doubt it. >> Longer term I have every confidence that it will be appreciated. >> >> I'm keen to ensure people enjoy the possibility of upgrading to the >> latest release. The continual need to retest applications mean that >> very few users upgrade quickly or with anywhere near the frequency >> with which we put out new releases. What is the point of rushing out >> software that nobody can use? pg_upgrade doesn't change your >> applications, so there isn't a fast path to upgrade in the way you >> seem to think. > > Simon, I basically think you are swimming up-stream on this issue, and > on the recovery.conf thread as well. You can keep arguing that backward > compatibility warrants more effort, but until there is more general > agreement in the group, you are going to lose these arguments, and > frankly, the arguments are getting tiring.
I speak when it is important that someone does so, and only on specific, real issues. When I speak, I do so on behalf of my clients and other Postgres users that suffer the problems created by those issues. I've never given a viewpoint on list that I know to be the opposite of the majority of people I represent. How could I change the viewpoint of the group without making rational arguments when it matters? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
