| From: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)CommandPrompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already |
| Date: | 2007-10-12 23:19:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1192231167.12497.61.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 18:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm of the opinion that #2 is the lesser evil, but maybe I'm overly
> influenced by my Red Hat packaging responsibilities --- I'll
> personally
> have to spend time on a compatibility package if we go with #1.
> Other opinions out there?
>
> Also, if we do #2 it means that we have the option to resolve the
> contrib/txid mess by pushing txid into the core backend before beta2.
> Any votes pro or con on that?
I am also for #2 (and yes, I want to avoid yet another compat rpm
problem...)
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2007-10-12 23:50:42 | Re: Hash index todo list item |
| Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2007-10-12 23:09:52 | Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already |