On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 09:16:36PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 06/04/2014 11:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be > >> imprudent. Anyone think differently? > >> > >> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other > >> initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition > >> that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog > >> additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago. > > > > It certainly seems that if we are going to initdb anyway, let's do it > > with approved features that got kicked (assuming) only because they > > would cause an initdb. > > agreed there - I dont think the "no initdb rule during BETA" really buys > us that much these days. If people test our betas at all they do on > scratch boxes in development/staging, i really doubt that (especially > given the .0 history we had in the last years) people really move -BETA > installs to production or expect to do so.
+1. You need a microscope to see the gain from imposing that rule. Even if people do move beta installs to production, that's just a pg_upgrade away. -- Noah Misch EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
