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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to