| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Beta2 Wrap Up ... |
| Date: | 2005-09-19 19:06:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1127156789.3770.51.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2005-19-09 at 10:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Any change like that would require another initdb. If we were going to
> force another initdb, my vote would be to revert these functions to
> where they were in beta1.
What purpose would that serve? About the only thing purpose I can see is
to avoid the API compatibility break for pg_cancel_backend() -- do
people actually consider that a major issue?
At any rate, I don't see any reason to revert the other changes (i.e.
those other than pg_cancel_backend()).
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Patrick Welche | 2005-09-19 19:07:34 | Re: postmaster core dump |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2005-09-19 18:56:31 | Re: Beta2 Wrap Up ... |