On 9/3/2007 11:58 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Oh, one more thing. I think it is illustrative to look at the areas we
> _didn't_ change when we went from "Postgres95" to "PostgreSQL": the
> super-user name and the backend binary name. Those were kept as
> "postgres", and I remember no questions about why those are "postgres".
More to the point, looking at our recommended upgrade strategy (use new
pg_dump against old Postmaster), wouldn't it be actually wise to somehow
encode the major version number into the installation directory? I mean
seriously, we didn't have a real problem ever, but what if some day the
new pg_dump against the old postmaster produces complete garbage ... and
the upgrade just wiped the data directory with an initdb?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
