Re: pg_migrator to /contrib in a later 9.0 beta

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I think it will be confusing if we change the name, so I vote to not
> >> change the name.
>
> > Actually, I would vote yes to change the name.
>
> I lean that way too. If there were no history involved, we'd certainly
> prefer pg_upgrade to pg_migrator.

Yeah, that was my feeling too. People like "pg_upgrade", or something
else? I will add some text like "pg_upgrade (formerly pg_migrator)" in
the docs.

I will also add something about the fact that there is no guarantee that
pg_upgrade will work with all future major Postgres releases, per Tom's
concern.

FYI, I specifically labeled backend changes as "binary upgrade" because
I wanted to make sure those changes were useful for other binary upgrade
tools, in case someone wanted to create another one.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com