On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:19:16PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Monday 03 August 2009 22:52:55 David Fetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:22:52PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 August 2009 21:07:00 David Fetter wrote:
> > > > We require that people supply docs with their changes, and it
> > > > is totally unreasonable to let them send in catalog changes
> > > > which do not include need migration changes. That's how it
> > > > works in every other RDBMS outfit that has changes on disk,
> > > > and we do not need to be the exception.
> > >
> > > Well, blocker number one for that is that pg_migrator is not
> > > even in the PostgreSQL CVS repository, but is more like an
> > > endorsed third-party product.
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure that pg_migrator should be tied to releases
> > of PostgreSQL, given what it does. Or did you mean that it's not
> > been given the same scrutiny that the PostgreSQL code base has?
>
> Well, how to you expect to mandate that all patches come with
> upgrade support if the PostgreSQL software proper does not contain
> any upgrade support in the first place, because pg_migrator is
> maintained elsewhere.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that pg_migrator (or
whatever actually does this) needs to be an official PostgreSQL
project in order for us to be able to require that people use it. For
what it's worth, I agree.
Is it strictly necessary that its release cycles match exactly those
of the database engine, or would it be OK for it to release as needed,
not triggering a major PostgreSQL release?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
