| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | 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 01:38:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3FBD6CAA.7040500@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
> 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 :)
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2003-11-21 04:09:27 | Handy user/group hack |
| Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-11-21 00:40:15 | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2003-11-21 05:12:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Release cycle length |
| Previous Message | elein | 2003-11-20 21:55:01 | Re: [DOCS] 7.4 official docs : Fonts? |