On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 09:17:50AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > That said, many discussions and ideas do get shut down, perhaps too
> > early, because of pg_upgrade considerations. If we had a plan to have
> > an incompatible release in the future, those ideas and discussions might
> > be able to progress to a point where we determine it's worth it to take
> > the pain of a non-pg_upgrade-supported release. That's a bit of a
> > stretch, in my view, but I suppose it's possible. Even so though, I
> > would suggest that we put together a wiki page to list out those items
> > and encourage people to add to such a list; perhaps having an item on
> > that list would make discussion about it progress beyond "it breaks
> > pg_upgrade".
>
> Yes, we should be collecting things we want to do for a pg_upgrade break
> so we can see the list all in one place.
OK, I have added a section to the TODO list for this:
Desired changes that would prevent upgrades with pg_upgrade
32-bit page checksums
Are there any others?
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
