On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:02:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > > I think it's a lot more nebulous than that. At the same time I think the > > days when we can blithely change the on-disk format with hardly a > > thought for migration are over. IOW, there's agreement things have to > > change, but the exact shape of the change is not yet clear (at least to > > me) ;-) > > Yeah. I think we're going to start paying more than zero attention to > this, but we don't yet have a handle on what the real parameters are. > In particular, it's hard to argue that pg_migrator has yet achieved > more than experimental status, so accepting or rejecting patches on > the grounds of whether they would or would not break pg_migrator might > be a bit premature. And at the other end of the spectrum, nobody except > Zdenek wants to deal with changes as invasive as the ones he's proposed. > So we're still feeling our way here. We do *not* have a framework in > which someone could submit a patch that includes an on-disk migration > aspect, so David's position that we should immediately institute a > hard requirement for such seems a bit ivory-tower.
I am not suggesting that this change be immediate, and it's not ivory tower. It's just how everybody else does it. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers