On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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.
Here's one that's come up a few times: being able to tweak the out-of-line storage strategy, e.g. change the compression format used. I think some folks were lamenting the lack of a convenient byte in the right place for that one. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
