On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:

> As much as I appreciate Simon's work in this area, I think we are still
> unclear if keeping backward-compatibility is worth the complexity
> required for future users.  Historically we have been bold in changing
> postgresql.conf settings to improve clarity, and that approach has
> served us well.

You raise a good point. First, thank you for the respectful comment;
my viewpoint is not formed from resistance to change per se, even if
may appear to be so.  Thank you for raising that possibility to allow
me to explain and refute that.

I am genuinely concerned that we show respect to downstream software
that uses our APIs and have no personal or corporate ulterior motive.

Most people are used to the 3 year cycle of development on which
SQLServer and Oracle have now standardised. Our 1 year cycle provides
a considerable benefit in agility, but it also provides for x3
complexity in release management and a continual temptation to change
for no good reason. I want to encourage people to adopt our APIs, not
give them a headache for attempting to do so. We know that software
exists that follows the previous API and we should take steps to
deprecate that across multiple releases, with appropriate notice, just
as we do in other cases, such as standard conforming strings where our
lack of boldness is appropriate.

 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to