From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_migrator to /contrib in a later 9.0 beta |
Date: | 2010-05-06 00:24:02 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilmqvFWGAAAAImNtqh77F_uwzrQxguNqwPUgMTD@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> So what was the conclusion here? Is pg_migrator going to be in contrib
>> for beta2 or 3, after cleaning it up?
>
> Thanks for asking. :-) I can add pg_migrator to contrib by the end of
> next week, so it will be in beta2. I will remove 8.4 as a migration
> target, which will allow the removal of some C code and documentation
> warnings. Unless I hear otherwise, I will start on it in the next few
> days. Total work will be < 8 hours, including testing.
>
> One outstanding question is whether we want to rename pg_migrator to
> something clearer, like pg_upgrade or pg_binary_upgrade. (pg_upgrade
> was the original name for this migration method in the 1998.) I am
> slightly concerned that the "migration" word is too associated with
> cross-database-product migration. (There are no mentions of
> "pg_migrator" in our CVS now, except for an 8.4 release note item
> mention when pg_dump --binary-upgrade was added.)
I think it will be confusing if we change the name, so I vote to not
change the name.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-06 00:29:52 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-06 00:23:17 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |