| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Mario Splivalo <mario(dot)splivalo(at)megafon(dot)hr>, pgsql-testers(at)postgresql(dot)org, IP <ireneusz(dot)pastusiak(at)poczta(dot)fm> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4? |
| Date: | 2010-02-24 20:26:43 |
| Message-ID: | 4B858B83.1070603@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-testers |
Lou Picciano wrote:
>
> The revision of the major version number is a bit misleading; per
> previous renumbering conventions (dare I say conventions?), the v9
> family change would have suggested a major architectural difference.
> IE, that an initdb would be required...
There are major architectural differences internally and externally--the
streaming replication implementation being the main one prompting the
major version number bump, removal of the old way of doing VACUUM FULL
is one of the big internal ones--and an initdb is required.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-02-24 20:28:38 | Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4? |
| Previous Message | Lou Picciano | 2010-02-24 20:18:29 | Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4? |