From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
Date: | 2009-01-28 17:00:15 |
Message-ID: | 18325.1233162015@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Zdenek Kotala (Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM) wrote:
>> And very important thing is that you need old version of postgreSQL
>> installed, which is something what packagers does not want. Look on
>> Oracle how does it.
> Just as a counter-point, Debian handles multiple concurrently installed
> versions of PostgreSQL just fine, in large part to specifically deal
> with the smooth migration challenge (though also because we realize
> people may want to continue using the old version while others may want
> to install the new version).
> Not sure if that's something the community wants to encourage other
> packagers to do or if we should look at making it easier to do, but it's
> at least possible and has been done for a pretty large distribution.
The Red Hat/Fedora brigade has also been thinking seriously about that,
though we've not gotten further than thinking yet. Of course, if
pg_upgrade becomes a reality we'd likely stop thinking about it.
IMHO, it would not by any means be a disaster for pg_upgrade to require
a copy of the older-version postmaster. The way I'd foresee packaging
it is to build a separate postgresql-upgrade RPM containing pg_upgrade
itself and a version-N-minus-1 postmaster that gets installed in a
nonstandard location (that pg_upgrade knows about). After you've
finished the upgrade you can remove that RPM and get the extra disk
space back. Most of the possible alternatives mean a *permanent*
disk space hit, because the postmaster will have to contain one-time-use
upgrade code that can't be dropped afterwards.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2009-01-28 17:03:56 | using composite types in insert/update |
Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2009-01-28 16:53:26 | Re: 8.4 release planning |