Re: State of Beta 2

From: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
To: Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net>, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, PgSQL General ML <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: State of Beta 2
Date: 2003-09-16 21:00:37
Message-ID: 3F6779F5.5040707@mascari.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Lamar Owen wrote:

> And that has nothing to do with user need as a whole, since the care
> level I mentioned is predicated by the developer interest level. While
> I know, Marc, how the whole project got started (I have read the first
> posts), and I appreciate that you, Bruce, Thomas, and Vadim started the
> original core team because you were and are users of PostgreSQL, I
> sincerely believe that in this instance you are out of touch with this
> need of many of today's userbase. And I say that with full knowledge of
> PostgreSQL Inc.'s support role. If given the choice between upgrading
> capability, PITR, and Win32 support, my vote would go to upgrading. Then
> migrating to PITR won't be a PITN.

Ouch. I'd like to see an easy upgrade path, but I'd rather have a 7.5
with PITR then an in-place upgrade. Perhaps the demand for either is
associated with the size of the db vs. the fear associated with an
inability to restore to a point-in-time. My fear of an accidental:

DELETE FROM foo;

is greater than my loathing of the upgrade process.

> What good are great features if it's a PITN to get upgraded to them?

What good is an in-place upgrade without new features?

(I'm kinda joking here) ;-)

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message scott.marlowe 2003-09-16 21:08:58 Re: State of Beta 2
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-09-16 20:51:38 Re: State of Beta 2