Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get > > > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open > > > > items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for > > > > beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an > > > > initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early. > > > > > > We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to > > > provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal > > > with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a > > > fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times, > > > but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*) > > > > We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before > > we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb. > > Right, and? How many times in the past has it been the last beta in the > cycle that forced the initdb? Are you able to guarantee that there > *won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next week?
I agree, but if we _know_ we have more initdb issues to resolve (and pg_dump load issues) doesn't it make sense to at least do all of them that we have outstanding? If not, we are guaranteeing an initdb. I would rather _try_ to avoid one for beta3. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
