On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2014-05-07 15:00:01 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com > >wrote: > > > > > On 2014-05-07 08:50:33 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > I don't think it's likely that beta1 will be binary compatible > with the > > > > > final version at this point. > > > > > > > > I rather think we're not ready for beta1 at this point (but I expect > > > > to lose that argument). > > > > > > Well, I guess it depends on what we define 'beta1' to be. Imo > evaluating > > > problematic pieces of new code, locating unfinished pieces is part of > > > that. I don't see much point in forbidding incompatible changes in > beta1 > > > personally. That robs th the development cycle of the only period where > > > users can actually test the new version in a halfway sane manner and > > > report back with things that apparently broken. > > > > > > > > We need to be very careful to tell people about it though. Preferrably if > > we *know* a dump/reload will be needed to go beta1->beta2, we should > > actually document that in the releasenotes of beta1 already. So people > can > > make proper plans.. > > Yes, I think it actually makes sense to add that to *all* beta release > notes. Even in beta2, although slightly weakened. > That's not a new thing btw. E.g. 9.3 has had a catversion bump between > beta1/2: > git diff 09bd2acbe5ac866ce9..817a89423f429a6a8b -- > src/include/catalog/catversion.h > > The more interesting note probably is that there quite possibly won't be > pg_upgrade'ability... > > Yeah, that's the big thing really. Requiring pg_upgrade between betas might even be "good" in the sense that then we get more testing of pg_upgrade :) But requiring a dump/reload is going to hurt people more. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
