Re: Release cycle length

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Release cycle length
Date: 2003-11-21 13:03:59
Message-ID: 20031121130359.GE26392@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-www

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 09:38:50AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >Yeah, I think the main issue in all this is that for real production
> >sites, upgrading Postgres across major releases is *painful*. We have
> >to find a solution to that before it makes sense to speed up the
> >major-release cycle.
>
> Well, I think one of the simplest is to do a topological sort of objects
> in pg_dump (between object classes that need it), AND regression
> testing for pg_dump :)

One of the most complex would be to avoid the need of pg_dump for
upgrades ...

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"I call it GNU/Linux. Except the GNU/ is silent." (Ben Reiter)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Treat 2003-11-21 14:14:14 Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd?
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2003-11-21 11:45:24 Re: logical column position

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2003-11-21 18:32:38 Re: Release cycle length
Previous Message Dave Page 2003-11-21 12:10:16 Re: [DOCS] 7.4 official docs : Fonts?