On 2016-04-12 11:25:21 -0700, Josh berkus wrote:
> Here's the features I can imagine being worth major backwards
> compatibility breaks:
> 1. Fully pluggable storage with a clean API.
> 2. Total elimination of VACUUM or XID freezing
> 3. Fully transparent-to-the user MM replication/clustering or sharding.
> 4. Perfect partitioning (i.e. transparent to the user, supports keys &
> joins, supports expressions on partition key, etc.)
> 5. Transparent upgrade-in-place (i.e. allowing 10.2 to use 10.1's tables
> without pg_upgrade or other modification).
> 6. Fully pluggable parser/executor with a good API
> That's pretty much it. I can't imagine anything else which would
> justify imposing a huge upgrade barrier on users. And, I'll point out,
> that in the above list:
> * nobody is currently working on anything in core except #4.
> * we don't *know* that any of the above items will require a backwards
> compatibility break.
none but 2) seem likely to require a substantial compatibility break.
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: