Re: State of Beta 2

You know, I can't help but thinking that there are a NUMBER of major
items on the TO DO list, this one, and several others that are related.
The point made that future clients and backends can't talk to old tables
is a good one. I used to rant and rave about Microslop doing that every
third or fourth version, and Postgres does it every minor revision. Hmmmm.

Is there a ROADMAP of integrated todo's somewhere?

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Huh? I have no disagreement that upgrading is a key feature that we are
>>>lacking ... but, if there are any *on disk* changes between releases, how
>>>do you propose 'in place upgrades'?
>>>
>>>
>>RTA. It's been hashed, rehashed, and hashed again. I've asked twice if
>>eRserver can replicate a 7.3 database onto a 7.4 server (or a 7.2 onto a
>>7.3); that question has yet to be answered.
>>
>>
>
>'K, I had already answered it as part of this thread when I suggested
>doing exactly that ... in response to which several ppl questioned the
>feasibility of setting up a duplicate system with >1TB of disk space to do
>the replication over to ...
>
>See: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-09/msg00886.php
>
>
>