On 12/15/2016 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> You are saying this is more massive than any other change we have made >>> in the past? In general, what need to be documented? > >> I don't necessarily think it's because it's more massive than any chance we >> have made before. I think it's more that this is something that we probably >> should've had before, and just didn't. > >> Right now we basically have a bulletpoint list of things that are new, with >> a section about things that are incompatible. Having an actual section >> with more detailed descriptions of how to handle these changes would >> definitely be a win. it shouldn't *just* be for these changes of course, it >> should be for any other changes that are large enough to benefit from more >> than a oneliner about the fact that they've changed. > > Yeah, it seems to me that where this is ending up is "we may need to > write more in the compatibility entries than we have in the past". > I don't see any problem with that, particularly if someone other than > Bruce or me is volunteering to write it ;-)
I'm up for writing it (with help from feature owners), provided that I don't have to spend time arguing that it's not too long, or that I should put it somewhere different. So can we settle the "where" question first? -- -- Josh Berkus Red Hat OSAS (any opinions are my own) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers