| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| Date: | 2005-11-17 16:02:07 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7E10A@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-patches-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: 17 November 2005 15:58
> To: Andreas Pflug
> Cc: Tom Lane; Simon Riggs; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Numeric 508 datatype
>
>
> >
> > Hm, so if this patch is applied now, and in 5 months or so somebody
> > implements pg_upgrade, this numeric storage patch would be
> rolled back?
> > OTOH, an upgrade mechanism that's compatible for future
> 8.3+ versions
> > only seems not too attractive.
> With Slony and Replicator I don't really see the need for in place
> upgrades.
They're not exactly easy to setup for the casual user (well, I assume
replicator isn't but it's not relevant to the majority of our users
anyway).
Regards, Dave.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-11-17 16:13:06 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-11-17 15:57:33 | Re: Numeric 508 datatype |