| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Mario Splivalo <mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr>, pgsql-testers(at)postgresql(dot)org, IP <ireneusz(dot)pastusiak(at)poczta(dot)fm> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4? |
| Date: | 2010-02-24 20:28:38 |
| Message-ID: | 4B858BF6.2000509@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-testers |
On 2/24/10 12:18 PM, Lou Picciano wrote:
> Thanks, Josh, for the notes - these are helpful. I'm inferring from
> them that a new instance build - from an 8.4-alpha - won't be necessary
> for this one?
Actually, we generally don't bother to make the catalog versions
compatible for alphas; we assume that people are going to re-initdb on a
new build.
> The revision of the major version number is a bit misleading; per
> previous renumbering conventions (dare I say conventions?), the v9
> family change would have suggested a major architectural difference.
> IE, that an initdb would be required...
That's one reason. The other reason is major feature changes which will
change the deployment of PostgreSQL, especially when those features can
be assumed to be not-quite-entirely-stable in the first release. "9.0"
says "New replication technology, may have bugs, use extra testing".
> PS - Really looking forward to the replication features. Already have
> the SSL build in place.
Yaaay. I look forward to you testing replication over SSL connections.
--Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lou Picciano | 2010-02-24 20:28:58 | Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4? |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-02-24 20:26:43 | Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4? |