From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: chosing a database name |
Date: | 2005-07-13 20:42:27 |
Message-ID: | 20050713204226.GH2950@merkur.hilbert.loc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:21:01PM -0700, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
> >My main concern, however, was whether the *approach* is
> >sound, eg using a separate database name per release or IOW
> >version. One way would be to use the database name "gnumed"
> >regardless of release, another way would be to use
> >"gnumedX_Y" for release X.Y. I wonder whether the latter
> >approach has any drawbacks people might think of regarding
> >release management etc.
>
> The only thing I can think is that if the changes from v1 to v2 don't
> touch the schema, then you've got a lot of extra update-work to do that
> really isn't necessary.
Got me ! :-)
> Doesn't hurt anything though and it gives you a
> nice clean way of reverting back a version if necessary.
That's what I hope to achieve. Doesn't free me from backup
before upgrade but still.
Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bob | 2005-07-13 20:50:37 | Re: To Postgres or not |
Previous Message | Bob | 2005-07-13 20:38:50 | Re: Transparent encryption in PostgreSQL? |