Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > I'm not going to rehash the arguments I have made before; they are all
> > > archived. Suffice to say you are simply wrong. The number of
> > > complaints over the years shows that there IS a need.
> >
> >
> > I at no point suggested that there was not a need. I only suggest that
> > the need may not be as great as some suspect or feel. To be honest -- if
> > your arguments were the "need" that everyone had... it would have been
> > implemented some how. It hasn't yet which would suggest that the number
> > of people that have the "need" at your level is not as great as the
> > number of people who have different "needs" from PostgreSQL.
>
> But the problem is that as more and more people put larger and larger
> datasets, that are mission-critical, into PostgreSQL, the need will
> grow larger and larger.
>
> Of course, we understand the "finite resources" issue, and are not
> badgering/complaining. Simply, we are trying to make our case that
> this is something that should go on the TODO list, and be kept in
> the back of developers' minds.
Added to TODO:
* Allow major upgrades without dump/reload, perhaps using
pg_upgrade
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073