* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> and it's entirely possible that we'll be able to implement SMs without
> breaking pgupgrade.
I'd certainly hope so.. It's certainly not obvious, to me at least,
why a new SM or supporting any of those features would require
breaking pg_upgrade. Perhaps there's something I'm not seeing there,
but it had better be a *really* good reason..
btw, has anyone posted the SM API proposal..? Unfortunately, I think I
had to leave before that was hashed out..
> First, let's have a few features for which breaking binary compatibility
> is a necessity or a clear benefit. Then we'll schedule when to break them.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen