Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-testers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2010-02-24 20:28:38
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?
Previous:From: Lou PiccianoDate: 2010-02-24 20:18:29
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group