I think it's a significant danger. But on the other hand our current table storage has some architectural issues that are hard to fix in an upward compatible m

I think it's a significant danger. But on the other hand our current table storage has some architectural issues that are hard to fix in an upward compatible manner (causing a number of issues around vacuum and write amplification due to hint bits etc). And even if there were an easy-ish incremental upgrade path, it's hard to e.g. move to an UNDO based MVCC implementation without regressing some workload (& introduce bugs) - allowing that development to happen in parallel and the adoption be by choice, that's much more realistic. Additionally, the best type of table storage is also very workload dependent. E.g. for some analytics (or even just long term storage) it's quite useful to have a columnar store, but for lots of transactional workloads that's not appropriate. (Note that the current tableam interface would allow for some simple columnar store, but that'd still need a good bit of planner and executor smarts to be useful for anything but higher storage density.) So I think on balance it's probably worth it.