Re: Sigh, we need an initdb

On 06/04/2014 08:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> On 06/04/2014 11:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
>> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be
>> imprudent.  Anyone think differently?
>>
>> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other
>> initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition
>> that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog
>> additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago.
> 
> It certainly seems that if we are going to initdb anyway, let's do it
> with approved features that got kicked (assuming) only because they
> would cause an initdb.

agreed there - I dont think the "no initdb rule during BETA" really buys
us that much these days. If people test our betas at all they do on
scratch boxes in development/staging, i really doubt that (especially
given the .0 history we had in the last years) people really move -BETA
installs to production or expect to do so.


Stefan