public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]>
Cc: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
Cc: Wolfgang Walther <[email protected]>
Cc: Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: libpq-oauth: a mid-beta naming check
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 08:21:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOYmi+=xbQcMErUVfUv-RHhRZTbJij9SiRpVG8Y4MiB4BUC8nw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQTojfE6iOFT2c1Yp+1ezQYKBT1jGXmXa2W_M8pQGc1_5w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+n9DHS_xUatuuspdC8tjtaMzY8P11Y9y5Fz+2pjikkL9g@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+=2cArQoSSRdAYwx2TBSHL5r0UhX28Q-5TP=0g-sxBXCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGECzQShbNtypPqabVv2eKJP=0Ejox=6f8k8G1E-2GN6Ag1kAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOYmi+=j9nLQFjQ8z0vyQmuhNMwsFbzvne_2S2pTbBGir4q6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+k9uN2OQ_sXjztZYPSpPbfGmkkv4yhtPhyjNQ6vy7SSfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+=WA4ZfyHWt+4=yFV7VAXQWvNKsn4R=3PwLd4GfmSTiBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+=cs+gDTAH0L+3JzpRLeHPOXDQxu7MOfsbjah9SkAP_kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOYmi+=UsSnLM4K+hYkhrezpQROQ5jr=72feAkQ0Te8GJf3Fbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAOYmi+mXoq9dUagnkXDgWa72QjCg8SdagBz_yGPUdh1Px0XD5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOYmi+m5L=-S8QuZgLcSdHyXreVDCVr2NBbCZVcdVzE8B2y5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGECzQTojfE6iOFT2c1Yp+1ezQYKBT1jGXmXa2W_M8pQGc1_5w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:39 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 01:20, Jacob Champion
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So, as we approach Beta 3: can anyone think of a way that this plan will fail?
>
> It's not entirely clear what plan exactly you talk about here. Are you
> saying you want to remove the -MAJOR suffix now for PG18? Or you want
> to postpone doing that until PG19, when you would have designed a
> stable API?

That is a PG19 plan. I don't want to make any changes for 18 unless
someone can see a fatal flaw; this is just my mid-beta check.

> If your goal is to remove this
> during-upgrade breakage after PG19, then I'd say that seems totally
> fine for a new feature.

That's the hope, yes.

Thanks!
--Jacob





view thread (31+ messages)  latest in thread

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: libpq-oauth: a mid-beta naming check
  In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+=xbQcMErUVfUv-RHhRZTbJij9SiRpVG8Y4MiB4BUC8nw@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox