Re: pg_migrator to /contrib in a later 9.0 beta

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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