On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:26:48AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > If I had to _guess_, I would say users who are using the default storage > > manager would still be able to use pg_upgrade, and those using > > non-default storage managers perhaps can't. > > That would make sense. > > > But, again, this is all so hypothetical that it doesn't seem worth > > talking about. > > Having a specific list of "these are the things we want to change, and > why, and here is why pg_upgrade can't support it" would be much more > useful to work from, I agree. > > That said, many discussions and ideas do get shut down, perhaps too > early, because of pg_upgrade considerations. If we had a plan to have > an incompatible release in the future, those ideas and discussions might > be able to progress to a point where we determine it's worth it to take > the pain of a non-pg_upgrade-supported release. That's a bit of a > stretch, in my view, but I suppose it's possible. Even so though, I > would suggest that we put together a wiki page to list out those items > and encourage people to add to such a list; perhaps having an item on > that list would make discussion about it progress beyond "it breaks > pg_upgrade".
Yes, we should be collecting things we want to do for a pg_upgrade break so we can see the list all in one place. -- 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
