On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 20:06:39 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
wrote:
>Perhaps you should go back and study what
>pg_upgrade actually did.
Thanks for the friendly invitation. I did that.
> It needed only minimal assumptions about the
>format of either old or new catalogs. The reason is that it mostly
>relied on portability work done elsewhere (in pg_dump, for example).
I was hoping that you had a more abstract concept in mind when you
said pg_upgrade; not that particular implementation. I should have
been more explicit that I'm not a friend of that pg_dump approach, cf.
my other mail.
>> Rod's adddepend is a good example.
>I don't think it's representative.
>> ... I wouldn't call it perfect
>... in other words, it doesn't work and can't be made to work.
Hmm, "not perfect" == "can't be made to work". Ok. If you want to
see it this way ...
Servus
Manfred
