* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2017-01-12 13:40:50 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote:
> > > The way I see it, either one person can spend an hour or whatever
> > > creating an extension once, or every postgres install that's using
> > > any of these functions now has yet another hurdle to upgrading.
> > 
> > I just don't buy this argument, at all.  These functions names are
> > certainly not the only things we're changing with PG10 and serious
> > monitoring/backup/administration tools are almost certainly going to
> > have quite a bit to adjust to with the new release, and that isn't news
> > to anyone who works with PG.
> By that argument we can just do arbitrary backward incompat changes.  We
> should aspire to be better than we've been in the past, not use that
> past as an excuse for not even trying.

When they're changes that are primairly going to affect
monitoring/backup/administration tools, yes, I do think we can make just
about arbitrary backward-incompatible changes.

As Robert mentioned, and I agree with, changing things which will impact
regular application usage of PG is a different story and one we should
be more cautious about.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to