> > OK, here's a situation. One of the programmers at your company runs
the
> >disk out of space. You're going to go bonk him on the head, but first,
> >there are more pressing matters. PostgreSQL 6.5 has horked up the
tables,
> >and needs to be fixed. 7.0 is released, which has a fix for the problem.
>
> Let's be real here. If your system is out of disk space, you can't do a
dump
> to put it into 7.0. You're definitely gonna need 6.5 to work at this
> point...
I know. And I was being real. That is the situation that happend at my
company, and it also came up from at least one other person on the list.
Yes, I needed 6.5 to get the data out. However, you *couldn't* dump the
data, PSQL had horked the tables up too badly. I ended up writing a Perl
script to get things from the tables, and put them into a flat file of SQL
statements. It was ugly, but the clock was ticking. ; )
(nothing like a junior programmer doing a recursive grep of a large file
system, and redirecting the results to a file *in* the filesystem he's
grepping)
> Your problems aren't with RPM's, your problems the FHS. Distrib packages
> (RPM *or* DEB) will put stuff in FHS compliant locations, packages by
anyone
> else will put files where they want. If you feel that's incorrect,
> Irespectfully suggest you hit up the LSB/FHS people if you want that to
> change, NOT Red Hat, PostGreSQL, or anyone else.
I think you're missing the subtlety of my point, but that's fine.
You're correct that this isn't the list, I'm going to drop the topic.
steve
