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

Re: Numeric 508 datatype

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Date: 2005-11-17 16:13:06
Message-ID: 437CAC12.2040702@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackerspgsql-patches

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> With Slony and Replicator I don't really see the need for in place 
> upgrades.
>

Maintaining a replica is hardly a cost-free exercise.

However, I don't think we can promise never to change the ondisk 
representation of data, nor the page layout. Sometimes an inplace 
upgrade just won't work, ISTM.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 16:20:50
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2005-11-17 16:04:32
Subject: Re: 8.0 -> 8.1 dump duplicate key problem?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 16:20:50
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-11-17 16:02:07
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-11-17 16:20:50
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: John McCawleyDate: 2005-11-17 16:08:14
Subject: Re: Performance of a view

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