| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "PostgreSQL WWW" <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |
| Date: | 2009-07-07 19:24:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4A535AB102000025000284EC@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> in the future we might want to change from a fixed list of patch
> sections to a free list of tags, say. Then someone might alter the
> application backend, and we'd use that new version for the next
> commit fest at the time. What will that do to the data of old
> commit fests?
Certainly you see how trivial that conversion would be. If that were
the worst case anyone could even imagine, it would be a pretty strong
argument that the schema is more than good enough to proceed.
Do you see anything fundamentally wrong with the structure in terms
of long term goals?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-07-07 19:30:24 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-07 19:16:15 | Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-07 19:42:00 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-07-07 19:14:15 | Re: [HACKERS] commitfest.postgresql.org |