On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Bruce Momjian<br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On Monday 03 August 2009 21:07:00 David Fetter wrote: >> > We require that people supply docs with their changes, and it is >> > totally unreasonable to let them send in catalog changes which do not >> > include need migration changes. That's how it works in every other >> > RDBMS outfit that has changes on disk, and we do not need to be the >> > exception. >> >> Well, blocker number one for that is that pg_migrator is not even in the >> PostgreSQL CVS repository, but is more like an endorsed third-party product. > > I wouldn't say pg_migrator is "endorsed". It is on pgfoundry and was > mentioned in the press release, but it isn't mentioned in our > documentation about upgrading, it wasn't mentioned in the release notes, > and it isn't mentioned on our web site, except as a news item. > > I believe this is because of concerns about pg_migrator's "experimental" > nature.
I think so. And also because it has a fair number of documented restrictions. Hopefully we'll be able to remove some of those in a future release. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
