Horton

Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2016-04-12T18:27:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2016-04-12 11:25:21 -0700, Josh berkus wrote:
> Here's the features I can imagine being worth major backwards
> compatibility breaks:
> 
> 1. Fully pluggable storage with a clean API.
> 
> 2. Total elimination of VACUUM or XID freezing
> 
> 3. Fully transparent-to-the user MM replication/clustering or sharding.
> 
> 4. Perfect partitioning (i.e. transparent to the user, supports keys &
> joins, supports expressions on partition key, etc.)
> 
> 5. Transparent upgrade-in-place (i.e. allowing 10.2 to use 10.1's tables
> without pg_upgrade or other modification).
> 
> 6. Fully pluggable parser/executor with a good API
> 
> That's pretty much it.  I can't imagine anything else which would
> justify imposing a huge upgrade barrier on users.  And, I'll point out,
> that in the above list:
> 
> * nobody is currently working on anything in core except #4.
> 
> * we don't *know* that any of the above items will require a backwards
> compatibility break.

none but 2) seem likely to require a substantial compatibility break.

Greetings,

Andres Freund