On May 24, 12:14 pm, James Gregurich <[email protected]> wrote: > If you were to actually PAY for such a version to be developed, I suspect > you'd choose to go ahead and write a migration script. I don't know the > details but I'd guess that what you are asking for is likely months of > engineering time and endless hours of agony trying back-port all the code > changes that happened since the file format change.
No, I don't expect that, what I'm trying to do here is draw on people's experience of the various versions, to determine which version that can read the old format will be likely to give me the least problems. At the moment I'm looking at 1.2.128 as being the last that supports the old format. But other users may have had experience that would suggest that a somewhat earlier release would be more reliable, and if so I'd like to hear about it before putting in a lot of effort trying out yet another version. Trouble with databases is that there are just too many conditions which could trigger errors for a simple testing exercise to cover. We ran quite a few tests on the 107 version before releasing it, but didn't see a single problem until we had unleashed it on an unsuspecting user base. In an environment like ours it's almost suicidal to follow every new version of 3rd party libraries that comes out. In fact I really wish I'd left the 4 year old version alone, all we really had from it was the occasional "double allocation" fault. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
