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

Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Lou Picciano <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>
Cc: 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 20:28:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-testers
On 2/24/10 12:18 PM, Lou Picciano wrote:
> Thanks, Josh, for the notes - these are helpful.  I'm inferring from
> them that a new instance build - from an 8.4-alpha - won't be necessary
> for this one?

Actually, we generally don't bother to make the catalog versions
compatible for alphas; we assume that people are going to re-initdb on a
new build.

> 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...

That's one reason.  The other reason is major feature changes which will
change the deployment of PostgreSQL, especially when those features can
be assumed to be not-quite-entirely-stable in the first release.  "9.0"
says "New replication technology, may have bugs, use extra testing".

> PS - Really looking forward to the replication features.  Already have
> the SSL build in place.

Yaaay. I look forward to you testing replication over SSL connections.

--Josh Berkus

In response to

pgsql-testers by date

Next:From: Lou PiccianoDate: 2010-02-24 20:28:58
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-02-24 20:26:43
Subject: Re: Postgres 9.0alpha4?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group