On 2014-05-10 19:08:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund > > <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote: > >> The problem is that once the beta is in progress (starting tomorrow), > >> the projects tries to avoid changes which require a dump and restore (or > >> pg_upgrade). Since the patch changes the catalog it'd require that. > > > It would be pg_upgrade'able though, wouldn't it? Don't we have precedents > > for requiring pg_upgrade during beta? At least that's a smaller problem > > than requiring a complete dump/reload. > > pg_upgrade makes the penalty for screwups smaller, but a post-beta1 initdb > is still the result of a screwup. None of the historical examples you > mention were planned in advance of beta.
Yea, I posted that just to answer Magnus' question. I've argued that this omission should be fixed since tuesday. There's been a tested and reviewed patch since 20140506230722.ge24...@awork2.anarazel.de. Given how many changes went in since it certainly wouldn't have been a very destabilizing commit. Anyway. I accept it's too late for beta1 now. Let's commit it if there's another catversion bump. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
