RE: WAL & RC1 status

From: Matthew <matt(at)ctlno(dot)com>
To: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: RE: WAL & RC1 status
Date: 2001-03-02 16:22:58
Message-ID: 183FA749499ED311B6550000F87E206C1FD037@srv.ctlno.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> From: Bruce Momjian [SMTP:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 9:54 AM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL & RC1 status
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Is there a version number in the WAL file?
> >
> > catversion.h will do fine, no?
> >
> > > Can we put conditional code in there to create
> > > new log file records with an updated format?
> >
>
While it may be unfortunate to have to do an initdb at this point in
the beta cycle, it is a beta and that is part of the deal. Postgre has the
reputation of being the highest quality opensource database and we should do
nothing to tarnish that. Release it when it's ready and not before.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-03-02 16:28:39 Re: Re: [HACKERS] Release in 2 weeks ...
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-03-02 16:21:29 Re: WAL & RC1 status