| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, bvctravel(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-7.4RC1 - unrecognized privilege type |
| Date: | 2003-11-09 01:56:35 |
| Message-ID: | 3FAD9ED3.2040409@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
>>I think we should fix it but not force an initdb ---
>>information_schema is new and I am not sure how many people are using
>>it.
>
> Yeah, I'm leaning that way too. We could publicize a script to fix the
> problem in any beta5 or RC1 databases that people don't want to
> re-initdb.
>
I agree, and this brings up a question that I've pondered before. Why do
we ever *require* and initdb when only metadata has changed (i.e. the
contents of the system catalogs, not catalog or page structure)?
ISTM that we ought to distinguish between catalog version, meaning
something structural has changed, and catalog-data version which is
correctible by running a script.
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-09 02:16:25 | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-7.4RC1 - unrecognized privilege type |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-11-08 23:23:05 | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-7.4RC1 - unrecognized privilege type |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-09 01:58:09 | Re: Question about Threads |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-09 00:45:03 | Re: Question for the developers. |