On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 13:45, mlw wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > >Personally, I feel that if we weren't working as hard as we could on > >features/performance/bugfixes, the upgrade issue would be moot because > >there wouldn't *be* any reason to upgrade.
What about the standard Microsoft reason for upgrades - the bug fixes ;) > > So I'm not planning to > >redirect my priorities. But this is an open source project and every > >developer gets to set their own priorities. If you can persuade someone > >to put their time into that, go for it. > > > Do not under estimate the upgrade issue. Very true! If upgrading is hard, users will surely expect us to keep maintaining all non-upgradable old versions for the foreseeable future ;( > I think it is huge and a LOT of > people have problems with it. Personally, I never understood why the > dump/restore needed to happen in the first place. > > Can't the data and index file format be more rigidly defined and stuck > too? I don't think the main issues are with file _formats_ but rather with system file structures - AFAIK it is a fundamental design decision (arguably a design flaw ;( ) that we use system tables straight from page cache via C structure pointers, even though there seems to be a layer called "storage Manager" which should hide the on-disk format completely. > Can't there just be some BKI process to add new data entries? I had > the same issues with 7.1 and 7.2, -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
