Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations
Date
Msg-id 603c8f070912201058g10ed6ce7m74ad54216f2a3d13@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Removing pg_migrator limitations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>     if (GET_MAJOR_VERSION(ctx.old.pg_version) <= 803 &&
>>         GET_MAJOR_VERSION(ctx.new.pg_version) >= 804)
>
> Well, yeah, you can probably make it work if you're willing to carry
> enoguh version tests and alternate sets of logic in the source code.
> I don't think that is a particularly good engineering approach however.
> It makes things less readable and probably more buggy.  Particularly
> so since we are talking about some quite significant logic changes here.
>
> There's a reason to clutter, eg, pg_dump with multiple version support.
> I don't see the argument for doing so with pg_migrator.  Separate source
> code branches seem like a much better idea.

I guess we have to look at the specific cases that come up, but ISTM
that a branch here amounts to a second copy of the code that has to be
separately maintained.  I'm having a hard time working up much
enthusiasm for that prospect.

...Robert


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: creating index names automatically?
Next
From: "Florian G. Pflug"
Date:
Subject: [WIP] Inspection of row types in pl/pgsql and pl/sql