On 27 May 2013 15:36, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 08:26:48AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> 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. > > Precisely. We've said right along that we reserve the right to have a > non-upgradable disk format change whenever sufficiently many reasons > accumulate to do that.
I'm happy with that. I was also thinking about collecting changes not related just to disk format, if any exist. > The way to go about that is to collect projects > that need to be kept on hold for such a release --- not to say we're > going to have such a release and then look for reasons. Agreed. I was trying to establish a realistic timeline for such events, so that the planning was able to be taken seriously. Yes, it wass a "work backwards" or "what if" type of planning. But now we have a rough plan of how it might look, collecting ideas can begin. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
