Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-06-04 14:52:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be
>> imprudent. Anyone think differently?
> Agreed. Additionally I also agree with Stefan that the price of a initdb
> during beta isn't that high these days.
Yeah, if nothing else it gives testers another opportunity to exercise
pg_upgrade ;-). The policy about post-beta1 initdb is "avoid if
practical", not "avoid at all costs".
Actually, that statement makes me realize that if we fix
PG_CONTROL_VERSION then it's a good idea to *also* do some regular catalog
changes, or at least bump catversion. Otherwise pg_upgrade won't be able to
cope with upgrading non-default tablespaces in beta1 installations.
For the moment I'll just go bump PG_CONTROL_VERSION, assuming that we have
enough other things on the table that at least one of them will result in
a catversion bump before beta2.
> Other things I'd like to change in that case:
I have no objection to these as long as we can get some consensus on the
new names (and personally I don't much care what those are, but I agree
"xmin" for a user column is a bad idea).
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
