On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 13:11, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> If we were a bit earlier in the 9.0 cycle I would suggest that this >>> confusion is a sufficient reason to drop the one-argument form of >>> string_agg. It's too late now though. > >> FWIW I think we can still change it. Isn't this type of issue part >> of what beta is for? If we were in RC that would be a different story >> :) > > Well, it'd take an initdb to get rid of it.
I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth. > In the past we've avoided > forcing initdb post-beta1 unless it was Really Necessary. OTOH, we seem > to be in the mode of encouraging beta testers to test pg_upgrade, so > maybe that concern isn't worth much at the moment. I have one or two 9.0-beta databases, a forced initdb would defiantly motivate me to try pg_upgrade :). To me, the question is are we planning on releasing a new beta anyway? Maybe its worth it then. If we were planning on going RC after this last beta (and I dont think we were?), I agree with Kevin, its not something worth pushing the release 9.0 for. By that I mean I assume if we force an initdb that we would want to do another beta regardless. Either way, I don't have strong feelings on this other than if we dont fix it now when will we? Maybe we will get "lucky" and someone will find an issue that we have to initdb for anyways :). -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
