On January 12, 2017 10:50:18 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >* 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.
I find it very hard to understand the justification for that, besides that it's strengthening external projects providing monitoring, backup, etc in a compatible way. Andres -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers