On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > decide to break it when we run into a feature that we really want that > > can't be had any other way? If we want to make breaking on-disk > > compatibility something that only happens every 5 years or so, we had > > better give people - I don't know, a year's notice - so that we can > > really knock out everything people have any interest in fixing in one > > release. > > Let me come clean and explain that I am worried pg_upgrade has limited > our ability to make data format changes.
It is nice to see hackers finally realizing that this is true (and required). > > pg_upgrade is much more accepted now than I think anyone expected a year > ago. Our users are now going to complain if pg_upgrade upgrades are not > supported in future releases, which eventually is going to cause us > problems. "us" being -hackers yes, but it will only help the community. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
