On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
> > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2. See the open
> > > items list. I think we will need until the middle of next week for
> > > beta2. In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
> > > initdb and that isn't even applied yet; Friday is too early.
> >
> > We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
> > provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
> > with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
> > fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
> > but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)
>
> We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
> we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.
Right, and? How many times in the past has it been the last beta in the
cycle that forced the initdb? Are you able to guarantee that there
*won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next week?