Re: 9.0 release notes done

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think we need you and Tom and other senior community members to
>> weigh in a little more overtly on which of the remaining open items
>> should get fixed prior to 9.0beta.

> Well, Tom and I have already posted publicly about it. There is nothing
> that either us see on the 9.0 "Bugs" open items list that would delay a
> beta:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.0_Open_Items

The traditional gating factor for going to beta is whether we believe
we are done making initdb-forcing catalog changes. Now the availability
of pg_migrator should lessen the pain of an initdb for beta users, so
that argument is maybe weaker than it used to be; but if we suppose that
that's still the standard then:

* I don't see any likelihood of an initdb being forced by fixes for the
non-HS/SR changes in 9.0.

* Most of the foreseeable flux from HS/SR seems to me to be at the level
of WAL entries not system catalogs. (Yesterday's fixes are unlikely to
be the end of that...) In principle we could support a WAL content
change without initdb, by instructing beta users to do a clean database
shutdown and then run pg_resetxlog when upgrading. In practice that
might be a bit shaky --- I don't remember if pg_resetxlog can get all
its info from pg_control without having to look into the old WAL
segments. It might be worth spending a bit of time to test that
procedure and see if we need to clean anything up.

* The only catalog change I can see coming from HS/SR is possible
additions of new inquiry/control functions. We have several proposals
for such on the table. Getting those in, if we're going to, is
therefore a "must fix for beta" item.

regards, tom lane