
There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
is the updated list.

Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              P O S T G R E S Q L

                          7 . 3  O P E N    I T E M S


Current at ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/open_items.

Source Code Changes
-------------------
Schema handling - ready? interfaces? client apps?
Drop column handling - ready for all clients, apps?
Fix BeOS, QNX4 ports
Fix AIX large file compile failure of 2002-09-11 (Andreas)
Get bison upgrade on postgresql.org for ecpg only (Marc)
Allow ecpg to properly handle PREPARE/EXECUTE (Michael)
Fix vacuum btree bug (Tom)
Fix client apps for autocommit = off
Fix clusterdb to be schema-aware
Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin)
Fix return tuple counts/oid/tag for rules
Loading 7.2 pg_dumps
	fix up function return types on lang/type/trigger creation or
	  loosen opaque restrictions
	functions no longer public executable
	languages no longer public usable
Add schema dump option to pg_dump
Add casts: (Tom)
	assignment-level cast specification
	inet -> text
	macaddr -> text
	int4 -> varchar?
	int8 -> varchar?
	add param for length check for char()/varchar()
Create script to make proper dependencies for SERIAL and foreign keys (Rod)
Fix $libdir in loaded functions?
	
On Going
--------
Point-in-time recovery
Win32 port
Security audit

Documentation Changes
---------------------
Document need to add permissions to loaded functions and languages
Move documation to gborg for moved projects

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 01:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Open 7.3 items
> Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin)

I will be happy to provide this simple fix once I can get some indication
of the preferred implication. The discussion left off with Bruce prefering
that the GUC code for the *_min_* variables be variable specific where as
Tom saw no need to back out the generic assignment function I provided,
despite the fact that it behaves `illogically' (client_min_messages =
FATAL?).

Gavin



Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:59:48 +1000 (EST)
Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>
Re: Open 7.3 items
> There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
> is the updated list.
> 
> Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.

What's the timeframe for beta2?  FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2.  'nother few
weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?

For those interested in PostgreSQL + FreeBSD, I have a patch pending
approval that will let developers toggle between a devel port and the
stable release for all ports that depend on PostgreSQL.

-sc

-- 
Sean Chittenden

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:50:24 -0700
Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
Re: Open 7.3 items
Bruce Momjian writes:

> There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
> is the updated list.

SIMILAR TO and the associated SUBSTRING functionality need to be fixed.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:11:26 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Open 7.3 items
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> 
> > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
> > is the updated list.
> 
> SIMILAR TO and the associated SUBSTRING functionality need to be fixed.
> 

Added to open items:

	Fix SIMILAR TO to be Posix compiant or remove it 

I still had your email in my mailbox so I wouldn't have forgotten.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:45:22 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Open 7.3 items
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > Change log_min_error_statement to be off by default (Gavin)
> 
> I will be happy to provide this simple fix once I can get some indication
> of the preferred implication. The discussion left off with Bruce prefering
> that the GUC code for the *_min_* variables be variable specific where as
> Tom saw no need to back out the generic assignment function I provided,
> despite the fact that it behaves `illogically' (client_min_messages =
> FATAL?).

Thanks, Gavin.  Tom convinced me that it was OK to have illogical
values.  Also, I think we need to support PANIC for server_min_messages
anyway to use as a default value for 'off'.  Does that make sense?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:46:41 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Open 7.3 items
Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
> > is the updated list.
> > 
> > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
> 
> What's the timeframe for beta2?  FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
> on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2.  'nother few
> weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?
> 
> For those interested in PostgreSQL + FreeBSD, I have a patch pending
> approval that will let developers toggle between a devel port and the
> stable release for all ports that depend on PostgreSQL.

I have heard end of this week or next week for beta2.  Also, plan was to
split the CVS tree at that time.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:47:25 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Open 7.3 items
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> On Going
> --------
> Point-in-time recovery
> Win32 port

these have nothing to do with v7.3, so shouldn't even be listed here ...



Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:38:24 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Open 7.3 items
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > On Going
> > --------
> > Point-in-time recovery
> > Win32 port
> 
> these have nothing to do with v7.3, so shouldn't even be listed here ...

OK, removed.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:40:02 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Open 7.3 items
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:

> > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
> > is the updated list.
> >
> > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
>
> What's the timeframe for beta2?  FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
> on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2.  'nother few
> weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?

I was actually going to post this tonight anyway ... its been 2 weeks, and
since nobody should be committing anything but fixes (right guys?), I'm
going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes that have been
committed over the past 2 weeks ...

Bruce, can you make sure that any changes needed prior to my packaging are
done before noon ADT on Friday?  I have no doubt that we have some
outstanding issues to work through, but this will give a new checkpoint
for those testing ...



Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:43:58 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> 
> > > There has been a lot of activity on open items in the past week.  Here
> > > is the updated list.
> > >
> > > Basically, upgrading and casting have blown up into a variety of items.
> >
> > What's the timeframe for beta2?  FreeBSD's going into a ports freeze
> > on Friday and I'd be slick to see it ship with 7.3beta2.  'nother few
> > weeks before beta2 or is it right around the corner?
> 
> I was actually going to post this tonight anyway ... its been 2 weeks, and
> since nobody should be committing anything but fixes (right guys?), I'm
> going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes that have been
> committed over the past 2 weeks ...
> 
> Bruce, can you make sure that any changes needed prior to my packaging are
> done before noon ADT on Friday?  I have no doubt that we have some
> outstanding issues to work through, but this will give a new checkpoint
> for those testing ...

We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
_everything_ required in there before going to beta2.  See the open
items list.  I think we will need until the middle of next week for
beta2.  In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
initdb and that isn't even applied yet;  Friday is too early.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:55:14 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
> _everything_ required in there before going to beta2.  See the open
> items list.  I think we will need until the middle of next week for
> beta2.  In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
> initdb and that isn't even applied yet;  Friday is too early.

We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)



Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:59:48 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
> > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2.  See the open
> > items list.  I think we will need until the middle of next week for
> > beta2.  In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
> > initdb and that isn't even applied yet;  Friday is too early.
> 
> We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
> provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
> with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
> fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
> but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)

We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:03:08 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
> > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2.  See the open
> > > items list.  I think we will need until the middle of next week for
> > > beta2.  In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
> > > initdb and that isn't even applied yet;  Friday is too early.
> >
> > We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
> > provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
> > with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
> > fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
> > but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)
>
> We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
> we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.

Right, and?  How many times in the past has it been the last beta in the
cycle that forced the initdb?  Are you able to guarantee that there
*won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next week?




Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:27:31 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > > We are going to require an initdb for beta2 and I think we need to get
> > > > _everything_ required in there before going to beta2.  See the open
> > > > items list.  I think we will need until the middle of next week for
> > > > beta2.  In fact, I have the inheritance patch that will require an
> > > > initdb and that isn't even applied yet;  Friday is too early.
> > >
> > > We are in beta, not release ... the purpose of going to beta2 is to
> > > provide a new checkpoint to work bug reports off of, so having to deal
> > > with an initdb should not be considered a problem by anyone, since only a
> > > fool would run beta in production, no? (and ya, I am such a fool at times,
> > > but i do accept the fact that I am such *grin*)
> >
> > We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code before
> > we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.
> 
> Right, and?  How many times in the past has it been the last beta in the
> cycle that forced the initdb?  Are you able to guarantee that there
> *won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next week?

I agree, but if we _know_ we have more initdb issues to resolve (and
pg_dump load issues) doesn't it make sense to at least do all of them
that we have outstanding?  If not, we are guaranteeing an initdb.  I
would rather _try_ to avoid one for beta3.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:34:08 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code
> > before we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.
> 
> Right, and?  How many times in the past has it been the last beta in
> the cycle that forced the initdb?  Are you able to guarantee that
> there won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next
> week?

I completely agree with Bruce here. Requiring an initdb for every beta
release significantly reduces the number of people who will be willing
to try it out -- so initdb's between betas are not disasterous, but
should be avoided if possible.

Since waiting till next week significantly reduces the chance of an
initdb for beta3 and has no serious disadvantage that I can see, it
seems the right decision to me.

Cheers,

Neil

-- 
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC


18 Sep 2002 23:29:38 -0400
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
> I completely agree with Bruce here. Requiring an initdb for every beta
> release significantly reduces the number of people who will be willing
> to try it out -- so initdb's between betas are not disasterous, but
> should be avoided if possible.

But it does mean that 7.3 to 7.3 pg_dump gets a good testing...

You could almost make it mandatory to have an initdb during beta :)

Chris


Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:32:41 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes
> that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ...

I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go
beta2.  I think I can get that done tomorrow.  I can't recall any
other initdb-forcing fixes in the pipeline; Bruce, do you?

Which is not to say we don't have a ton of known bugs to fix...
I'd lean towards a Monday-ish beta2 myself.

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:55:43 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes
> > that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ...
> 
> I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go
> beta2.  I think I can get that done tomorrow.  I can't recall any
> other initdb-forcing fixes in the pipeline; Bruce, do you?

Looking at the open item list, I see:

        fix up function return types on lang/type/trigger creation or
          loosen opaque restrictions

Seems that should be fixed before beta2 because it does effect people
loading data.

Are we done with all of these?
	
	Add casts: (Tom)
	        assignment-level cast specification
	        inet -> text
	        macaddr -> text
	        int4 -> varchar?
	        int8 -> varchar?
	        add param for length check for char()/varchar()

> Which is not to say we don't have a ton of known bugs to fix...
> I'd lean towards a Monday-ish beta2 myself.

Yes, I would like to get a few days of quiet before packaging beta2.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Thu, 19 Sep 2002 00:15:39 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes
> > that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ...
>
> I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go
> beta2.  I think I can get that done tomorrow.  I can't recall any
> other initdb-forcing fixes in the pipeline; Bruce, do you?
>
> Which is not to say we don't have a ton of known bugs to fix...
> I'd lean towards a Monday-ish beta2 myself.

'k, then let's go with a Sunday night packaging, Monday announce, so that
we have beta2 testing starting right at the beginning of the week ...



Thu, 19 Sep 2002 01:34:38 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Looking at the open item list, I see:
>         fix up function return types on lang/type/trigger creation or
>           loosen opaque restrictions

> Seems that should be fixed before beta2 because it does effect people
> loading data.

Yeah, we should do something with that.  Are people okay with the idea
of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE
to the correct thing?

> Are we done with all of these?
> 	Add casts: (Tom)
> 	        assignment-level cast specification
> 	        inet -> text
> 	        macaddr -> text
> 	        int4 -> varchar?
> 	        int8 -> varchar?
> 	        add param for length check for char()/varchar()

All but the inet/macaddr->text change; I backed that out after finding
that it induced a bunch of regression-test failures.  The tests assume
that "inet = integer" will provoke a failure.  Guess what: if both inet
and integer have implicit casts to text, the system takes it.

On reflection I still feel that we should be getting rid of implicit
casts to text rather than adding more.  This is still an open bug:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2001-10/msg00108.php

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:22:45 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 
Tom Lane writes:

> Yeah, we should do something with that.  Are people okay with the idea
> of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE
> to the correct thing?

Seems like an appropriate time to throw a notice, though.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net


Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:36:53 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Yeah, we should do something with that.  Are people okay with the idea
>> of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE
>> to the correct thing?

> Seems like an appropriate time to throw a notice, though.

Of course.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 19 Sep 2002 17:40:20 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane writes:
> >> Yeah, we should do something with that.  Are people okay with the idea
> >> of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE
> >> to the correct thing?
> 
> > Seems like an appropriate time to throw a notice, though.
> 
> Of course.

Now that we have additional elog levels, is it a NOTICE or a WARNING.  I
am leaning to the latter.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:00:30 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
> Yeah, we should do something with that.  Are people okay with the idea
> of CREATE LANGUAGE, etc, retroactively changing prorettype from OPAQUE
> to the correct thing?
>> 
> Seems like an appropriate time to throw a notice, though.
>> 
>> Of course.

> Now that we have additional elog levels, is it a NOTICE or a WARNING.  I
> am leaning to the latter.

NOTICE seems sufficient to me.

			regards, tom lane

Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:26:01 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 


Can I buy an extra day or two?  I'm in DC till Saturday then there's the
trip home.  How 'bout a wednesday beta release?

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > > ... I'm going to do up a beta2 on Friday due to the number changes
> > > that have been committed over the past 2 weeks ...
> >
> > I want to review and apply Alvaro's attisinherited fix before we go
> > beta2.  I think I can get that done tomorrow.  I can't recall any
> > other initdb-forcing fixes in the pipeline; Bruce, do you?
> >
> > Which is not to say we don't have a ton of known bugs to fix...
> > I'd lean towards a Monday-ish beta2 myself.
>
> 'k, then let's go with a Sunday night packaging, Monday announce, so that
> we have beta2 testing starting right at the beginning of the week ...
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
>


Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
      http://www.camping-usa.com      http://www.cloudninegifts.com
   http://www.meanstreamradio.com       http://www.unknown-artists.com
==========================================================================




Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:00:26 -0400 (EDT)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items) 
I have to say that during beta testing I ALWAYS do an initdb and a reload 
just to make sure the pg_dumpall and pg_restore stuff works right.  Plus 
to make sure problems that might only pop up with a new initdb are found 
as well.  I probably "burn it to the ground" several times on a single 
beta just to test different data sets and I prefer a clean database when 
doing that so I'm sure the problems I see are from just that one dataset.

So, Requiring an initdb for every beta wouldn't bother me one bit.  To me 
you test a beta by migrating to it just like it was a production version, 
and that means a new build from the ground up, initdb and all.

On 18 Sep 2002, Neil Conway wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > We should get _all_ the known initdb-related issues into the code
> > > before we go beta2 or beta3 is going to require another initdb.
> > 
> > Right, and?  How many times in the past has it been the last beta in
> > the cycle that forced the initdb?  Are you able to guarantee that
> > there won't* be another initdb required if we wait until mid-next
> > week?
> 
> I completely agree with Bruce here. Requiring an initdb for every beta
> release significantly reduces the number of people who will be willing
> to try it out -- so initdb's between betas are not disasterous, but
> should be avoided if possible.
> 
> Since waiting till next week significantly reduces the chance of an
> initdb for beta3 and has no serious disadvantage that I can see, it
> seems the right decision to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Neil
> 
> 


Tue, 24 Sep 2002 11:23:04 -0600 (MDT)
"scott.marlowe" <scott.marlowe@ihs.com>
Re: Beta2 on Friday Morning (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)