Re: pg_upgrade project status

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> 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.

Agreed, if it has to be gone over in that much detail, conversion to perl
might not be a bad idea. I still say it'd have to be C eventually, but
it'd be good to use something more concise until all the design issues
are shaken out.

regards, tom lane