Hi all, we are developing GNUmed, a medical practice management application running on PostgreSQL (you want your medical data to be hosted by something reliable, don't you ;-) We are putting out our first release sometime in the next two weeks. The idea is to name the production database "gnumed0.1" for version 0.1 (gnumed0.2 etc for upcoming releases). I do realize the "." may force me to quote the database name in, say, a CREATE DATABASE call. The rationale is that when going from 0.1 to 0.2 I can simply create the database "gnumed0.2" and populate it with tables all the while gnumed0.1 is still up and running serving users. Downtime would only be needed to actually migrate the data (which, of course, is the bigger time sink - unless we use Slony which may or may not possible due to schema changes). The other advantage is that I can instruct my doctors to "startup the previous client version if something breaks at 3:30am and call tech support in the morning". I *am* a doctor. I have personally been in that very situation with commercial electronic medical record applications. Which is part of why I am participating in GNUmed in the first place. Now, my question is whether I am failing to see the *dis*advantages that may be looming from such an approach. Anyone has any helpful thoughts on this ? Karsten Hilbert, MD GNUmed i18n coordinator -- GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD 4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
