On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@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