| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |
| Date: | 2009-07-07 20:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20090707200826.GQ7694@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Robert Haas escribió:
> I suspect both are true, but in the unlikely event that we decide on
> some massive change to the system, we can either run the DBs in parallel
> as Tom suggests, or dump out the older data in Wiki markup and post it on
> there. But I can't imagine what we'd want to do that would even make us
> consider such drastic steps. Your example would not be a difficult
> migration, for instance.
By the way, if the migration of the current commitfest was an automatic
procedure, is there a chance that the old commitfests can be migrated as
well?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-07-07 20:14:26 | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-07-07 20:08:08 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2009-07-08 00:02:04 | Re: Sourceforge PG release |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-07 20:05:33 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |