On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> writes: >> This whole discussion is based on assumptions which do not match my >> recollection of the old discussion. I would suggest people go back and >> read the emails but it's clear at least some people have so it seems >> people get different things out of those old emails. My recollection >> of Tom and Heikki's suggestions for Zdenek were as follows: > >> 1) When 8.9.0 comes out we also release an 8.8.x which contains a new >> guc which says to prepare for an 8.9 update. > > Yeah, I think the critical point is not to assume that the behavior of > the old system is completely set in stone. We can insist that you must > update to at least point release .N before beginning the migration > process. That gives us a chance to backpatch code that makes > adjustments to the behavior of the old server, so long as the backpatch > isn't invasive enough to raise stability concerns.
If we have consensus on that approach, I'm fine with it. I just don't want one of the people who wants this CRC feature to go to a lot of trouble to develop a space reservation system that has to be backpatched to 8.4, and then have the patch rejected as too potentially destabilizing. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
