On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:38:52AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie ago 03 16:02:28 -0400 2012:
> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 04:01:18PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > >> I don't disagree with pg_upgrade being operationally complex, but I
> > > >> don't see how this relates to contrib vs. non-contrib at all. Are we
> > > >> supposed to only have "simple" programs in src/bin? That seems a
> > > >> strange policy.
> > > >
> > > > Well, perhaps we need to re-open the discussion then.
> > >
> > > I feel like putting it in src/bin would carry an implication of
> > > robustness that I'm not sanguine about. Granted, putting it in
> > > contrib has already pushed the envelope in that direction further than
> > > is perhaps warranted. But ISTM that if we ever want to put this in
> > > src/bin someone needs to devote some serious engineering time to
> > > filing down the rough edges.
> >
> > I don't know how to file down any of the existing rough edges.
>
> So do you have a list of rough edges?
Yes, the list of rough edges is the 14-steps you have to perform to run
pg_upgrade, as documented in the pg_upgrade manual page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/pgupgrade.html
The unknown is how to reduce the number of steps in a way the community
would find acceptable.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
