Justin Clift <jus...@postgresql.org> writes: > Moving over a conversation from the pgsql-advocacy mailing list. In it > Simon (CC'd) raised the issue of potentially creating a > backwards-compatibility > breaking release at some point in the future, to deal with things that > might have no other solution (my wording). > > Relevant part of that thread there for reference: > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8+jLtk1NtaJyXc=hAqX=0k+ku4zfavgvbkfs+_sor9he...@mail.gmail.com > > Simon included a short starter list of potentials which might be in > that category: > > * SQL compliant identifiers > * Remove RULEs > * Change recovery.conf > * Change block headers > * Retire template0, template1 > * Optimise FSM > * Add heap metapage > * Alter tuple headers > et al > > This still is better placed on -hackers though, so lets have the > conversation here to figure out if a "backwards compatibility breaking" > release really is needed or not. > > Hopefully we can get it all done without giving users a reason to consider > switching. ;)
I'm sure this won't be a popular suggestion, but in the interest of advocating for more cryptography: if we land GSSAPI auth+encryption, I'd like the auth-only codepath to go away.
Description: PGP signature