On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Matthew T. OConnor wrote: > > > The count approach seems definitely the right way, but a check (possibly > > > a slow one) can be probably done without initdb. > > > > We can certainly do the proper fix in 7.4; do we consider this bug > > important enough to do an initdb for 7.3beta2? I don't have a strong > > feeling either way about that. > > I think we are too scared of doing initdb during beta... > > Initdb during beta should not be evaultated on a per bug basis, but keep a > list of all things that could be fixed and judge if the total of all the > fixes is worth one initdb. Right now off the top of my head I can think of > the split function and this inherited change, are there more? > > my two cents...
Agreed. Actually, an argument could likely be made that changes that require initdb should be done as early as possible since the later the change the more people there will be to test the change, and there will be fewer people who actually have to initdb since a lot of folks don't test beta releases until the 3rd or 4th beta. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
