| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)svr1(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Implement a preliminary 'template' facility for procedural |
| Date: | 2005-09-06 02:42:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3321316D-5272-4AFB-9E26-0BF175051C82@myrealbox.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Sep 6, 2005, at 11:34 AM, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 08:50:49PM -0300, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> For now the template data is hard-wired in proclang.c --- this
>> should be replaced later by a new shared system catalog, but we
>> don't want to force initdb during 8.1 beta.
>>
>
> Wouldn't beta be the time to do it? I know we define initdb-forcing
> changes to mean a major version bump, but I also thought that beta was
> a time to find the places where such changes make sense. Has there
> been a guarantee that beta means "no initdb" in previous releases?
>
> Just my $.02.
I've been thinking the same thing. Beta is a time for shaking things
out and getting them right, isn't it?
My ¥2 (at current exchange rates, approximately USD 0.0183)
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-06 02:46:55 | Re: pgsql: Implement a preliminary 'template' facility for procedural |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2005-09-06 02:34:06 | Re: pgsql: Implement a preliminary 'template' facility for procedural |