Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > decide to break it when we run into a feature that we really want that
> > > can't be had any other way? If we want to make breaking on-disk
> > > compatibility something that only happens every 5 years or so, we had
> > > better give people - I don't know, a year's notice - so that we can
> > > really knock out everything people have any interest in fixing in one
> > > release.
> >
> > Let me come clean and explain that I am worried pg_upgrade has limited
> > our ability to make data format changes.
>
> It is nice to see hackers finally realizing that this is true (and
> required).
It is like credit card companies offering customer perks to encourage
vendors to accept credit cards. It is not something vendors set out to
do, but it becomes a customer disappointment if they don't comply.
> > pg_upgrade is much more accepted now than I think anyone expected a year
> > ago. Our users are now going to complain if pg_upgrade upgrades are not
> > supported in future releases, which eventually is going to cause us
> > problems.
>
> "us" being -hackers yes, but it will only help the community.
Right.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +