Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >> I think we need you and Tom and other senior community members to >> weigh in a little more overtly on which of the remaining open items >> should get fixed prior to 9.0beta.
> Well, Tom and I have already posted publicly about it. There is nothing > that either us see on the 9.0 "Bugs" open items list that would delay a > beta: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items The traditional gating factor for going to beta is whether we believe we are done making initdb-forcing catalog changes. Now the availability of pg_migrator should lessen the pain of an initdb for beta users, so that argument is maybe weaker than it used to be; but if we suppose that that's still the standard then: * I don't see any likelihood of an initdb being forced by fixes for the non-HS/SR changes in 9.0. * Most of the foreseeable flux from HS/SR seems to me to be at the level of WAL entries not system catalogs. (Yesterday's fixes are unlikely to be the end of that...) In principle we could support a WAL content change without initdb, by instructing beta users to do a clean database shutdown and then run pg_resetxlog when upgrading. In practice that might be a bit shaky --- I don't remember if pg_resetxlog can get all its info from pg_control without having to look into the old WAL segments. It might be worth spending a bit of time to test that procedure and see if we need to clean anything up. * The only catalog change I can see coming from HS/SR is possible additions of new inquiry/control functions. We have several proposals for such on the table. Getting those in, if we're going to, is therefore a "must fix for beta" item. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
