On 12 April 2016 at 20:25, Josh berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Here's the features I can imagine being worth major backwards > compatibility breaks: > > 1. Fully pluggable storage with a clean API. > > 2. Total elimination of VACUUM or XID freezing > > 3. Fully transparent-to-the user MM replication/clustering or sharding. > > 4. Perfect partitioning (i.e. transparent to the user, supports keys & > joins, supports expressions on partition key, etc.) > > 5. Transparent upgrade-in-place (i.e. allowing 10.2 to use 10.1's tables > without pg_upgrade or other modification). > > 6. Fully pluggable parser/executor with a good API > > That's pretty much it. I can't imagine anything else which would > justify imposing a huge upgrade barrier on users. And, I'll point out, > that in the above list: > > * nobody is currently working on anything in core except #4. > > * we don't *know* that any of the above items will require a backwards > compatibility break. > > People keep talking about "we might want to break compatibility/file > format one day". But nobody is working on anything which will and > justifies it. > Of your list, I know 2ndQuadrant developers are working on 1, 3, 5. 6 has being discussed recently on list by other hackers. I'm not really sure what 2 consists of; presumably this means "take the pain away" rather than removal of MVCC, which is the root cause of those secondary effects. I don't think the current focus on manually intensive DDL partitioning is the right way forwards. I did once; I don't now. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ <http://www.2ndquadrant.com/> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
