On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> > >> So what was the conclusion here? Is pg_migrator going to be in contrib > >> for beta2 or 3, after cleaning it up? > > > > Thanks for asking. :-) I can add pg_migrator to contrib by the end of > > next week, so it will be in beta2. I will remove 8.4 as a migration > > target, which will allow the removal of some C code and documentation > > warnings. Unless I hear otherwise, I will start on it in the next few > > days. Total work will be < 8 hours, including testing. > > > > One outstanding question is whether we want to rename pg_migrator to > > something clearer, like pg_upgrade or pg_binary_upgrade. (pg_upgrade > > was the original name for this migration method in the 1998.) I am > > slightly concerned that the "migration" word is too associated with > > cross-database-product migration. (There are no mentions of > > "pg_migrator" in our CVS now, except for an 8.4 release note item > > mention when pg_dump --binary-upgrade was added.) > > I think it will be confusing if we change the name, so I vote to not > change the name.
Actually, I would vote yes to change the name. Once its in contrib, we likely never will and this isn't really a migration tool. It is an upgrade tool. Joshua D. Drake > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise Postgres Company > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers