| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Laurette Cisneros <laurette(at)nextbus(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: |
| Date: | 2002-09-11 03:52:48 |
| Message-ID: | 200209102352.48441.lamar.owen@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 11:43 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > However, there is a problem in that recent changes have made it quite
> > likely that an upgrade will fail and will requre the dump script to be
> > edited. There are some issues in pg_dump / pg_dumpall that need
> > addressing before final release.
> AFAIK, we did what we could on that front in 7.2.1. If you have ideas
> on how we can retroactively make things better, I'm all ears ...
So this release is going to be the royal pain release to upgrade to? Not
good. People may just not upgrade at all in that case.
My datasets aren't complicated enough to trigger some of these problems;
people who have complex datasets need to report all failures so that we can
at least write a sed/perl/awk script to massage the things that need
massaging, if it can be done that easily.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-11 03:53:46 | Re: beta1 packaged |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-11 03:43:11 | Re: |