Re: Sigh, we need an initdb

David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> If we are planning on keeping this rule, which it seems like at least a few
> people feel is too stringent, maybe we can consider releasing an Alpha
> version and communicate the expectation that an initdb will be required to
> go from the alpha to beta1. Then hopefully, but not certainly, no initdb
> needed once in the beta phase. Basically convert beta1 into an alpha with
> that single policy/expectation change.

I think that would just amount to adding a month of dead time in what is
already a very long beta cycle. Our past experience with releasing things
called "alphas" has been that people don't test them.

regards, tom lane