From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_migrator to /contrib in a later 9.0 beta |
Date: | 2010-05-06 03:23:23 |
Message-ID: | 201005060323.o463NN502791@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 20:24 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> I think it will be confusing if we change the name, so I vote to not
> >> change the name.
>
> > Actually, I would vote yes to change the name.
>
> I lean that way too. If there were no history involved, we'd certainly
> prefer pg_upgrade to pg_migrator.
Yeah, that was my feeling too. People like "pg_upgrade", or something
else? I will add some text like "pg_upgrade (formerly pg_migrator)" in
the docs.
I will also add something about the fact that there is no guarantee that
pg_upgrade will work with all future major Postgres releases, per Tom's
concern.
FYI, I specifically labeled backend changes as "binary upgrade" because
I wanted to make sure those changes were useful for other binary upgrade
tools, in case someone wanted to create another one.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-06 03:44:55 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-05-06 02:48:53 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |