Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Glen Parker" <glenebob(at)nwlink(dot)com>
Cc: "Postgresql Patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and
Date: 2006-12-27 03:24:39
Message-ID: 2732.24.211.165.134.1167189879.squirrel@www.dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Glen Parker wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> As for backpatching, you already knew the answer :-)
>
> Nope, I had no idea this would require initdb...
>
>

Regardless of this, our rule against backpatching new features is well
founded. The stable branches are called stable for a good reason.

cheers

andrew


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-27 03:33:14
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and
Previous:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2006-12-27 02:14:47
Subject: Re: Bitmap index thoughts

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-27 03:33:14
Subject: Re: Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and
Previous:From: Euler Taveira de OliveiraDate: 2006-12-27 01:56:37
Subject: xlog directory at initdb time

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group