| From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net>, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, PgSQL General ML <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: State of Beta 2 |
| Date: | 2003-09-20 01:06:44 |
| Message-ID: | ge8nmv8t833jfdj87cj4be7buca25490fm@email.aon.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:06:39 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:
>Perhaps you should go back and study what
>pg_upgrade actually did.
Thanks for the friendly invitation. I did that.
> It needed only minimal assumptions about the
>format of either old or new catalogs. The reason is that it mostly
>relied on portability work done elsewhere (in pg_dump, for example).
I was hoping that you had a more abstract concept in mind when you
said pg_upgrade; not that particular implementation. I should have
been more explicit that I'm not a friend of that pg_dump approach, cf.
my other mail.
>> Rod's adddepend is a good example.
>I don't think it's representative.
>> ... I wouldn't call it perfect
>... in other words, it doesn't work and can't be made to work.
Hmm, "not perfect" == "can't be made to work". Ok. If you want to
see it this way ...
Servus
Manfred
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2003-09-20 01:18:42 | Re: State of Beta 2 |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-09-20 00:27:41 | Re: State of Beta 2 |