Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Subject Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already
Date
Msg-id 1192231167.12497.61.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 18:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm of the opinion that #2 is the lesser evil, but maybe I'm overly
> influenced by my Red Hat packaging responsibilities --- I'll
> personally
> have to spend time on a compatibility package if we go with #1.
> Other opinions out there?
>
> Also, if we do #2 it means that we have the option to resolve the
> contrib/txid mess by pushing txid into the core backend before beta2.
> Any votes pro or con on that?

I am also for #2 (and yes, I want to avoid yet another compat rpm
problem...)

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Glaesemann
Date:
Subject: Re: Seems we need a post-beta1 initdb already
Next
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash index todo list item