On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > There are a number of changes we'd probably like to make to the way > things work in Postgres. This thread is not about discussing what > those are, just to say that requirements exist and have been discussed > in various threads over time. > > The constraint on such changes is that we've decided that we must have > an upgrade path from release to release. > > So I'd like to make a formal suggestion of a plan for how we cope with this: > > 1. Implement online upgrade in 9.4 via the various facilities we have > in-progress. That looks completely possible. > > 2. Name the next release after that 10.0 (would have been 9.5). We > declare now that > a) 10.0 will support on-line upgrade from 9.4 (only) > b) various major incompatibilities will be introduced in 10.0 - the > change in release number will indicate to everybody that is the case > c) agree that there will be no pg_upgrade patch from 9.4 to 10.0, so > that we will not be constrained by that > > This plan doesn't presume any particular change. Each change would > need to be discussed on a separate thread, with a separate case for > each. All I'm suggesting is that we have a coherent plan for the > timing of such changes, so we can bundle them together into one > release. > > By doing this now we give ourselves lots of time to plan changes that > will see us good for another decade. If we don't do this, then we > simply risk losing the iniative by continuing to support legacy > formats and approaches.
Huh. I don't think that bumping the version number to 10.0 vs 9.5 is justification to introduce breaking changes. In fact, I would rather see 10.0 be the version where we formally stop doing that. I understand that some stuff needs to be improved but it often doesn't seem to be worth the cost in the long run. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
