On 2014-05-07 09:44:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> >> Well, I guess it depends on what we define 'beta1' to be. Imo evaluating
> >> problematic pieces of new code, locating unfinished pieces is part of
> >> that. I don't see much point in forbidding incompatible changes in beta1
> >> personally. That robs th the development cycle of the only period where
> >> users can actually test the new version in a halfway sane manner and
> >> report back with things that apparently broken.
>
> > We need to be very careful to tell people about it though. Preferrably if
> > we *know* a dump/reload will be needed to go beta1->beta2, we should
> > actually document that in the releasenotes of beta1 already. So people can
> > make proper plans..
>
> This seems like much ado about very little. The policy will be the same
> as it ever was: once beta1 is out, we prefer to avoid forcing an initdb,
> but we'll do it if we have to.
I think Magnus' point is that we should tell users that we'll try but
won't guarantee anything. -hackers knowing about it doesn't mean users
will know.
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services