| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-02-07 17:10:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4207A0FC.8000900@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>> No, as an 8.0.x is mean to be for minor changes/fixes/improvements
>> ... 'addressing a patnt conflict', at least in ARC's case, is a major
>> change, which is why we are looking at a short dev cycle for 8.1 ...
>
>
> Then we better make sure that 8.0 -> 8.1 does not require dump&reload.
> However unlikely we judge the patent problem to actually bite people,
> we cannot force 8.0.x users into a dump&reload upgrade by not
> providing a backport when it happens.
>
>
>
There was some mention of an upgrade tool which would avoid the need for
a dump/restore - did that idea die?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2005-02-07 17:15:55 | Re: Query optimizer 8.0.1 (and 8.0) |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2005-02-07 16:41:01 | Re: Patent issues and 8.1 |