It's be EXTREMELY cool if there was some relationship betweenn the code for;
PITR and
Inplace upgrades
Any possibility of overlaps?
Mike Mascari wrote:
>Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>
>
>>And that has nothing to do with user need as a whole, since the care
>>level I mentioned is predicated by the developer interest level. While
>>I know, Marc, how the whole project got started (I have read the first
>>posts), and I appreciate that you, Bruce, Thomas, and Vadim started the
>>original core team because you were and are users of PostgreSQL, I
>>sincerely believe that in this instance you are out of touch with this
>>need of many of today's userbase. And I say that with full knowledge of
>>PostgreSQL Inc.'s support role. If given the choice between upgrading
>>capability, PITR, and Win32 support, my vote would go to upgrading. Then
>>migrating to PITR won't be a PITN.
>>
>>
>
>Ouch. I'd like to see an easy upgrade path, but I'd rather have a 7.5
>with PITR then an in-place upgrade. Perhaps the demand for either is
>associated with the size of the db vs. the fear associated with an
>inability to restore to a point-in-time. My fear of an accidental:
>
>DELETE FROM foo;
>
>is greater than my loathing of the upgrade process.
>
>
>
>>What good are great features if it's a PITN to get upgraded to them?
>>
>>
>
>What good is an in-place upgrade without new features?
>
>(I'm kinda joking here) ;-)
>
>Mike Mascari
>mascarm@mascari.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
