Skip to content

Conversation

mpalmer
Copy link
Contributor

@mpalmer mpalmer commented May 3, 2024

This addresses, though does not really fix #83, because it doesn't make refinery support timestamped migrations by default, but only if you opt-in to the new feature. However, making it an optional feature neatly sidesteps the unanswered questions in the issue, and so makes the implementation easier to complete and land.

This addresses, though does not really *fix* rust-db#83, because it doesn't make refinery support timestamped migrations *by default*, but only if you opt-in to the new feature.
However, making it an optional feature neatly sidesteps the unanswered questions in the issue, and so makes the implementation easier to complete and land.
Copy link
Member

@jxs jxs left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hi, and thanks for your interest! As I stated on #83 (comment) I'd rather this was not feature gated and instead a function was provided to migrate to int8. Would you be willing to do that instead?

Thanks

@mpalmer
Copy link
Contributor Author

mpalmer commented May 20, 2024

Would you be willing to do that instead?

Not at the present time, no. As you identified in #83, there are unanswered design questions with migrating existing users to an int8 column, I don't use the CLI, and the approach in this PR Works For Me(TM). Perhaps one of the commenters from #83, such as @ankhers, might like to use this PR as a basis?

@jxs jxs force-pushed the int8-versions branch 3 times, most recently from fb26681 to 666cbd3 Compare August 14, 2024 16:50
@jxs
Copy link
Member

jxs commented Jul 25, 2025

Not at the present time, no. As you identified in #83, there are unanswered design questions with migrating existing users to an int8 column, I don't use the CLI, and the approach in this PR Works For Me(TM). Perhaps one of the commenters from #83, such as @ankhers, might like to use this PR as a basis?

You are right, this makes more sense as a feature that doesn't break everyone's previous code. I am sorry for the back and fourth, I have now fixed the merge conflicts for this to be merged.
Thanks @mpalmer!

@jxs jxs merged commit bec7d22 into rust-db:main Jul 25, 2025
29 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants