Mark Woodward wrote:
>>> No one could expect that this could happen by 8.2, or the release after
>>> that, but as a direction for the project, the "directors" of the
>>> PostgreSQL project must realize that the dump/restore is becomming like
>>> the old locking vacuum problem. It is a *serious* issue for PostgreSQL
>>> adoption and arguably a real design flaw.
>> "directors"? (looks around) Nobody here but us chickens, boss.
>> If you're really interested in pg_upgrade, you're welcome to help out.
>> Sherry, Zdenek, and Jonah Harris are working on it (the last separately,
> This is the most frustrating thing, I *wan't* to do these things, but I
> can't find any companies that are willing to pay me to do it, and having
> kids, I don't have the spare time to do it.
Well that pretty much sums it up doesn't. If the people / users that
want this feature, want it bad enough -- they will cough up the money to
get it developed.
If not.... then it likely won't happen because for most users in place
upgrades really isn't a big deal.
Joshua D. Drake
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not