Joshua D. Drake wrote: > 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).
It is like credit card companies offering customer perks to encourage vendors to accept credit cards. It is not something vendors set out to do, but it becomes a customer disappointment if they don't comply. > > 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. Right. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
