On January 12, 2017 10:50:18 AM PST, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>* Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> On 2017-01-12 13:40:50 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > * Jim Nasby (Jim.Nasby@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
providingmonitoring, backup, etc in a compatible way.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.