* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > 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. > > Hmm --- we've been conducting this argument in a vacuum, but you're right, > we should consider what else is changing in v10. If you can point to > already-committed changes that mean that code using these functions will > almost certainly need changes anyway for v10, then that would greatly > weaken the argument for providing aliases.
We changed the pg_xlog directory to be pg_wal, that's certainly going to have an impact on monitoring and backup tools. We've also made changes in, at least, what's reported in pg_stat_activity and there's been discussions about changing it further (list background workers or not, etc), and in pg_stat_replication (with the addition of quorum-based sync rep). In fact, these kinds of changes are almost certainly going to require more work for tool authors to deal with than just a simple function name change. And that's only with a few minutes of looking at the commit log and I don't doubt that there's more and that we're going to have even more before feature freeze that a serious monitoring tool will have to be updated for. As long as we properly include these changes in the release notes for tool authors, I really don't see any of them as a big deal. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
