| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fast default stuff versus pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2018-06-19 17:12:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZzqW7JfSWAd8QYmtxG1H0h4K5AUvoF7DOorj3iALynow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The problem here is that that function does not exist in 11beta1.
> Since adding the "incoming" function is certainly going to require
> initdb, we have to be able to dump from the server as it now stands,
> or we'll be cutting existing beta testers adrift.
That would still be less disruptive than ripping the feature out,
which would be cutting those same users adrift, too, unless I'm
missing something.
I have to admit that I think this feature is scary. I'm not sure that
it was adequately reviewed and tested, and I'm worried this may not be
the only problem it causes. But this particular problem, as Andres
says, doesn't seem like anything we can't fix with acceptable risk.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-19 17:19:32 | Re: Fast default stuff versus pg_upgrade |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-06-19 17:09:28 | Re: WAL prefetch |