| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| Date: | 2005-11-18 12:07:47 |
| Message-ID: | 437DC413.1080807@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Is anybody working or considering to work on pg_upgrade, or is all this
> hypothetical? Our past history has seen lots of people offering to work
> on pg_upgrade, and none has produced a working version. Is it fair or
> useful to impose restrictions on development just because it's remotely
> possible that somebody is going to be motivated enough to consider
> producing it?
Depends on the impact the restriction imposes. If
stability/scalability/functionality or so is affected, this sounds not
tolerable. If it's about not saving two bytes that have been spoiled for
ages before, or keeping a backward compatibility type, it appears
feasible to me.
Changing on-disk structures at the start of the 8.2 dev cycle is a
guarantee that nobody will implement pg_upgrade for 8.2.
Regards,
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-11-18 12:08:44 | Re: Sun supporting PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-11-18 11:32:07 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Wampler | 2005-11-18 12:55:38 | Re: Improving count(*) |
| Previous Message | Tino Wildenhain | 2005-11-18 11:48:53 | Re: Improving count(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2005-11-18 12:26:35 | Re: Minor comment update for DELETE |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-11-18 11:32:07 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |