Re: pg_migrator issue with contrib

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think it's becoming increasingly clear that pg_migrator is not for
>> the faint of heart; in fact, I think we should hedge references to it
>> with words like "experimental".
>
> Probably ...

I'm with Robert on that one - while pg_migrator is extremely inmportant
for us to go forward. I really think we need to tag it "experimental"
for this release at least. pg_migrator is complex and we are still
discovering new issues every day I don't think rushing it as _THE_
solution will do any good for our reputation. A lot of our code(as
software in general) took years to mature and pg_migrator is likely not
an exception.

>
>> Just to recall the history, the first pgfoundry
>> commit messages for this tool were on February 9th, three months after
>> the start of the final CommitFest and feature freeze for 8.4. Since
>> then, development has proceeded at an amazingly rapid pace, but
>> there's only so much you can do in four months,
>
> ... but the above is a *complete* misrepresentation of the thing's
> history (apparently you failed to look in the Attic?). EDB have been
> using previous versions of this tool for some years, and the basic
> premise is the same as contrib/pg_upgrade that existed as far back as
> 7.1/7.2 timeframe.

well - how much field exposure has pg_migrator/edb_migrator seen
actually? given the large number of "breaks your database" bugs and
issues that got found during the last few weeks I have a hard time
imaging that edb really used the current code for their customers.

Stefan