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

Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

From: Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
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 20:18:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-testers
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? 

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... 

Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Lou 

PS - Really looking forward to the replication features. Already have the SSL build in place. 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> 
To: "IP" <ireneusz(dot)pastusiak(at)poczta(dot)fm> 
Cc: "Lou Picciano" <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>, "Mario Splivalo" <mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr>, pgsql-testers(at)postgresql(dot)org 
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:49:19 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [TESTERS] Postgres 9.0alpha4? 

On 2/24/10 9:46 AM, IP wrote: 
> Was there any communication related to this release? I can't see it 
> neither in 
> Feature Matrix nor in any other place except 
> What's the relationship between 8.5alpha3 and 9.0alpha4? What have 
> happened to earlier alphas of 9.0? 

Oh, the feature matrix. Good point. 

Otherwise, it's here: 

--Josh Berkus 

In response to


pgsql-testers by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-24 20:26:43
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-02-24 17:49:19
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group