Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 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?
I agree, but if we _know_ we have more initdb issues to resolve (and
pg_dump load issues) doesn't it make sense to at least do all of them
that we have outstanding? If not, we are guaranteeing an initdb. I
would rather _try_ to avoid one for beta3.
-- 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,
Pennsylvania19073
