| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2003-12-15 04:04:04 |
| Message-ID: | 5825.1071461044@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> writes:
> On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 18:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How large N will be in practice remains to be seen, of course, but I'd
>> expect something on the order of 4 or 5.
> Ok, this is what I was looking for. If we are serious about this, would
> it make sense to start a new policy of bumping the major version number
> every time an upgrade requires a dump / reload?
That was discussed already. I think it's purely a cosmetic issue, but
have no objection to doing it that way...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-12-15 04:09:05 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 03:57:07 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |