On 2014-05-11 00:31:09 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres@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 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andres Freund <andres@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?
Yes.
> Don't we have precedents
> for requiring pg_upgrade during beta? At least that's a smaller problem
> than requiring a complete dump/reload.
I think in reality there's been catversion updates after most of the
recent beta1 releases.
9.3 (one):
git log 817a89423f429a6a8b36847ee499f5b6be39c3be.. -- src/include/catalog/catversion.h
9.2 (one, but reverted):
git log f70fa835e08eee4cb2dc0f72d66cf633089c37e8..REL9_2_0 -- src/include/catalog/catversion.h
9.1 (two):
git log 993c5e59047dd568d4831f7ec5c6199acd21f17f..REL9_1_0 -- src/include/catalog/catversion.h
9.0 (one)
git log -p f9d9b2b34a094b94fda39231c16ab5f2e6bfbbe4..REL9_0_0 -- src/include/catalog/catversion.h
(makes me really wish betas were properly tagged with git as well...)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services