On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 17:32, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes: >> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 10:44:32AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> and it doesn't scale to consider the possibility that we might want >>> to re-release an alpha after fixing some particularly evil bug. A >>> tag without a branch won't handle that either. > >> Is this a use case? I truly hope nobody will try using a beta, let >> alone an alpha, in production. Do we need to provide for such a >> possibility? I don't recall that we've ever back-patched a beta, or >> even a release candidate. > > I don't really know if it's a use-case or not; I just have a feeling > that if we use a release procedure that guarantees we can't do it, > we'll live to regret that.
Agreed. > The bug-fixing situation for betas and RCs is a bit different because > it's expected that there will be a compatible update available shortly. > So you can usually assume that updating to the next beta/RC/release will > fix whatever problems got found. Alphas are going to be out there on > their own with absolutely no expectation that the next alpha is > catversion-compatible. And I doubt we'd bother generating pg_migrator > builds that work for pairs of alpha releases. > > I agree with you that it'd be insane to run anything mission-critical on > an alpha build; but I could see someone having loaded up quite a lot of > test data on one. (If we aren't hoping for some pretty serious testing > of these releases, I am not sure what is the point of doing them at all.) > So it seems to me that having the ability to fix show-stopper bugs > without forcing a migration to a later alpha would be a good thing. > Maybe we'll never need it, or maybe we will. I think the alpha->alpha migration would actually be very useful to these testers. That'll get them onto the new alpha. I think that's actually a lot more important than alpha->release or release->next alpha. I haven't actually looked into pg_migrator enough to know how likely it is that it'll "just work" going alpha->alpha when there have only been "normal" changes? How invasive are the changes that actually require pg_migrator to be touched at all? -- Magnus Hagander Self: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
