On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:02:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > I think it's a lot more nebulous than that. At the same time I think the
> > days when we can blithely change the on-disk format with hardly a
> > thought for migration are over. IOW, there's agreement things have to
> > change, but the exact shape of the change is not yet clear (at least to
> > me) ;-)
>
> Yeah. I think we're going to start paying more than zero attention to
> this, but we don't yet have a handle on what the real parameters are.
> In particular, it's hard to argue that pg_migrator has yet achieved
> more than experimental status, so accepting or rejecting patches on
> the grounds of whether they would or would not break pg_migrator might
> be a bit premature. And at the other end of the spectrum, nobody except
> Zdenek wants to deal with changes as invasive as the ones he's proposed.
> So we're still feeling our way here. We do *not* have a framework in
> which someone could submit a patch that includes an on-disk migration
> aspect, so David's position that we should immediately institute a
> hard requirement for such seems a bit ivory-tower.
I am not suggesting that this change be immediate, and it's not ivory
tower. It's just how everybody else does it.
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
