* 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. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
