From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |
Date: | 2009-07-07 19:42:00 |
Message-ID: | 26913.1246995720@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> With the wiki, the data of the old fests will pretty much stay what is
> was, unless we change the wiki templates in drastic ways, as I
> understand it. But if we did changes like the above, or more
> complicated things, perhaps, what will happen? Perhaps we simply
> don't care about the historical data. But if we do, we better have
> pretty high confidence that the current application will do for a
> while or is easily upgradable.
I'm not convinced that we care in the least about commitfests that are
more than a fest or two back; especially since the mailing lists archive
all the interesting underlying data. However, if we did, the answer
doesn't seem that hard: keep the old database instance on-line for
serving up the old data, and put a new one beside it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-07 19:45:24 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-07 19:35:52 | Re: Have \d show child tables that inherit from the specified parent |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-07 20:05:33 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-07 19:24:49 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |