"TJ O'Donnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I understand and appreciate bug fixes, but isn't one of the purposes of
> major releases to provide some stability (say of API) within
> the major release?
Our traditional definition of API stability within a release series has
considered only the SQL level: no forced initdbs, no changes of
SQL-level semantics (at least not without darn good reason). Providing
stability of backend-internal APIs has not been on the radar screen at all.
I'm entirely unwilling to buy into a proposal that reads "no .h file
changes within a release series". To make this fly, there'd need to be
a clear, and rather narrow, definition of which aspects of the backend
internal environment are considered API exported for add-ons to use.
Which would be a good thing to have, really, but even developing a
proposal would be a huge amount of work (never mind getting everyone
to agree to it ;-)). Are you volunteering?
BTW, this seems pretty far off-topic for -general; I suggest using
-hackers for further discussion.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
