On 2014-05-07 09:44:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote: > >> Well, I guess it depends on what we define 'beta1' to be. Imo evaluating > >> problematic pieces of new code, locating unfinished pieces is part of > >> that. I don't see much point in forbidding incompatible changes in beta1 > >> personally. That robs th the development cycle of the only period where > >> users can actually test the new version in a halfway sane manner and > >> report back with things that apparently broken. > > > We need to be very careful to tell people about it though. Preferrably if > > we *know* a dump/reload will be needed to go beta1->beta2, we should > > actually document that in the releasenotes of beta1 already. So people can > > make proper plans.. > > This seems like much ado about very little. The policy will be the same > as it ever was: once beta1 is out, we prefer to avoid forcing an initdb, > but we'll do it if we have to.
I think Magnus' point is that we should tell users that we'll try but won't guarantee anything. -hackers knowing about it doesn't mean users will know. Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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
