On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2014-05-10 19:19:22 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote: > > On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > > > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > > I don't even understand why it's questionable whether this should be > > > > fixed. > > > > > > Sigh. We have some debate isomorphic to this one every year, it seems > > > like. The argument why it shouldn't be fixed now is: ITS. TOO. LATE. > > > Which part of that isn't clear to you? > > > > > > > Sorry but I don't understand why it's too late. The 9.4 branch not been > > created yet. > > The problem is that once the beta is in progress (starting tomorrow), > the projects tries to avoid changes which require a dump and restore (or > pg_upgrade). Since the patch changes the catalog it'd require that. > > It would be pg_upgrade'able though, wouldn't it? Don't we have precedents for requiring pg_upgrade during beta? At least that's a smaller problem than requiring a complete dump/reload. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
