Re: Sigh, we need an initdb - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Sigh, we need an initdb
Date
Msg-id 27895.1401935354@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Sigh, we need an initdb  (David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
David G Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> If we are planning on keeping this rule, which it seems like at least a few
> people feel is too stringent, maybe we can consider releasing an Alpha
> version and communicate the expectation that an initdb will be required to
> go from the alpha to beta1.  Then hopefully, but not certainly, no initdb
> needed once in the beta phase.  Basically convert beta1 into an alpha with
> that single policy/expectation change.

I think that would just amount to adding a month of dead time in what is
already a very long beta cycle.  Our past experience with releasing things
called "alphas" has been that people don't test them.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David G Johnston
Date:
Subject: Re: Sigh, we need an initdb
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Need to backpatch 2985e16 to 9.3 and further (HS regression test out)