From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Displaying accumulated autovacuum cost |
Date: | 2012-02-21 03:59:27 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFMNyMVh6iCVPxP85XmqxBHvHCvY28XSB5_aodjCM0_FA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> +DATA = pg_stat_statements--1.1.sql pg_stat_statements--1.0--1.1.sql \
>> + pg_stat_statements--unpackaged--1.0.sql
>>
>> Though I'm not familiar with CREATE EXTENSION. Why did you exclude 1.0.sql
>> from DATA? In hstore/Makefile, 1.0.sql is included. You think we should prevent
>> old version (i.e., 1.0) of pg_stat_statements from being used in 9.2?
>
> I'm not sure. My feeling is that we probably don't want to ship all
> the old scripts forever. People should install the latest version,
> and use the upgrade scripts to get there if they have an older one.
> So my gut feeling here is to change hstore to exclude that file rather
> than adding it here. Any other opinions?
Agreed. But I wonder why VERSION option is usable in CREATE EXTENSION
if people always should use the latest version. Maybe I'm missing something..
Anyway, shipping v1.0 of pg_stat_statement seems less useful in 9.2, so
I agree to exclude it.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-21 04:01:33 | Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again |
Previous Message | Maxim Boguk | 2012-02-21 03:25:41 | Re: Unfamous 'could not read block ... in file "...": read only 0 of 8192 bytes' again |