Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

Sold. I stand convinced. (Tks for clarifying).

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Lou Picciano" <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>
Cc: "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Mario Splivalo" <mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr>, pgsql-testers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "IP" <ireneusz(dot)pastusiak(at)poczta(dot)fm>
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 3:26:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [TESTERS] Postgres 9.0alpha4?

Lou Picciano wrote:
>
> 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...

There are major architectural differences internally and externally--the
streaming replication implementation being the main one prompting the
major version number bump, removal of the old way of doing VACUUM FULL
is one of the big internal ones--and an initdb is required.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us