| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade code questions |
| Date: | 2010-05-13 15:37:30 |
| Message-ID: | 9666.1273765050@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> I have added SGML comments to comment out the text that mentions EDB
>> Advanced Server. Is that enough? Should I remove the text from the
>> SGML? Should I move it to the bottom of the SGML? Should I remove the
>> EnterpriseDB Advanced Server checks from the C code too? I don't
>> remember having to deal with anything like this before, so I am unclear
>> how to proceed.
> I say remove it. On all accounts.
> There's a fork of postgres for EDB AS, shouldn't there be a fork of
> pg_upgrade the same way, if it requires special code? The code in
> community postgresql certainly shouldn't have any EDB AS code in it.
Indeed. Given the (presumably large) delta between EDB's code and ours,
having to have some delta in pg_upgrade isn't going to make much
difference for them. I think the community code and docs should
completely omit any mention of that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua Tolley | 2010-05-13 16:42:18 | wal_level and continuous archiving documentation |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-05-13 15:22:50 | Re: wal_level in postgresql.conf |