Re: Sigh, we need an initdb

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 09:16:36PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On 06/04/2014 11:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be
> >> imprudent. Anyone think differently?
> >>
> >> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other
> >> initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition
> >> that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog
> >> additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago.
> >
> > It certainly seems that if we are going to initdb anyway, let's do it
> > with approved features that got kicked (assuming) only because they
> > would cause an initdb.
>
> agreed there - I dont think the "no initdb rule during BETA" really buys
> us that much these days. If people test our betas at all they do on
> scratch boxes in development/staging, i really doubt that (especially
> given the .0 history we had in the last years) people really move -BETA
> installs to production or expect to do so.

+1. You need a microscope to see the gain from imposing that rule. Even if
people do move beta installs to production, that's just a pg_upgrade away.

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com