| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 20:57:21 |
| Message-ID: | 200901272257.22964.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 16:52:15 Tom Lane wrote:
> Indeed. We might put up with a perl script for awhile for the sake of
> development expediency, but the long-term expectation would have to be
> that someone would rewrite it in C. Given that, I wonder whether
> there's much point in a rewrite into Perl if we already have a working
> shell script. I suppose someone will say "but you'll get no testing
> from Windows users then..."
The existing ksh script needs about two weeks of work to make it work outside
of Solaris and to make it more robust. Then you might as well rewrite it in
a more portable and robust language.
But yes, you have to think weeks here in terms of getting this polished.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-01-27 21:00:05 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-01-27 20:56:15 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |