| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sigh, we need an initdb |
| Date: | 2014-06-04 18:56:44 |
| Message-ID: | 538F6BEC.4090608@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/04/2014 11:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be
> imprudent. Anyone think differently?
>
> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other
> initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition
> that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog
> additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago.
It certainly seems that if we are going to initdb anyway, let's do it
with approved features that got kicked (assuming) only because they
would cause an initdb.
JD
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
Political Correctness is for cowards.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2014-06-04 19:16:36 | Re: Sigh, we need an initdb |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-04 18:52:44 | Re: Proposing pg_hibernate |