Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already
Date: 2007-10-12 22:53:53
Message-ID: 470FFB01.3000607@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that #2 is the lesser evil, but maybe I'm overly
> influenced by my Red Hat packaging responsibilities --- I'll personally
> have to spend time on a compatibility package if we go with #1.
> Other opinions out there?
>
> Also, if we do #2 it means that we have the option to resolve the
> contrib/txid mess by pushing txid into the core backend before beta2.
> Any votes pro or con on that?
>
>
>

#2 by all means. Post-beta initdb is mildly unfortunate; compatibility
packages are to be avoided far more.

+1 to put txid in core, where it belongs.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darcy Buskermolen 2007-10-12 23:02:17 Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-10-12 22:41:58 Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already