Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think forcing an initdb might be more trouble than this wart is worth.
> +1. I would not make this change unless we have to force an initdb
> anyway. And I really hope we don't, because I'm sort of hoping the
> next 9.0 release will be rc1.
Hm? I don't think that an initdb here would have any impact on whether
we can call the next drop RC1 or not. We're talking about removing a
single built-in entry in pg_proc --- it's one of the safest changes we
could possibly make. The only argument I can see against it is not
wanting to force beta testers through an initdb. But it seems like that
might actually be a positive thing not a negative one, in this cycle,
because we're trying to get test coverage on pg_upgrade.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
