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

Re: Numeric 508 datatype

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>,"Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: "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 16:02:07
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E10A@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org 
> [mailto:pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of 
> Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: 17 November 2005 15:58
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: Tom Lane; Simon Riggs; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Numeric 508 datatype
> 
> 
> >
> > Hm, so if this patch is applied now, and in 5 months or so somebody 
> > implements pg_upgrade, this numeric storage patch would be 
> rolled back?
> > OTOH, an upgrade mechanism that's compatible for future 
> 8.3+ versions 
> > only seems not too attractive.
> With Slony and Replicator I don't really see the need for in place 
> upgrades.

They're not exactly easy to setup for the casual user (well, I assume
replicator isn't but it's not relevant to the majority of our users
anyway).

Regards, Dave.

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-11-17 16:13:06
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2005-11-17 15:57:33
Subject: Re: Numeric 508 datatype

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