Ian Barwick wrote:
> >> Well, that is step #4:
> >> ? ? ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/pgupgrade.html
> >> ? ? ? 4.
> >> ? ? ? Install pg_upgrade
> >> ? ? ? Install pg_upgrade and pg_upgrade_support in the new PostgreSQL cluster
> >> Was that not clear enough?
> > I hope my comment didn't sound insulting. ?I really want to know how
> > that doc item can be made clearer.
> No insult taken :) .With the benefit of hindsight it's plenty clear;
> the problem was:
> a) I was doing this in a hurry (had a small amount of time to kill and
> a dev machine with an older beta on it)
> b) got sidetracked by this thread which appears to describe the same
> problem: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-testers/2010-06/msg00000.php
> and which was popping up pretty high in Google.
Yep, we need to address this.
> Looking over the doc page again, if scanning over it, it's a bit easy
> to misread it as something like "Install pg_upgrade for pg_upgrade
> support in the new PostgreSQL cluster".
The big problem was that the title said "Install pg_upgrade", but the
detail had you installing two things, one of which was pg_upgrade. It
was using pg_upgrade in both a generic sense, and in the
/contrib/pg_upgrade sense, which is bound to confuse, as you said.
I have attached a doc diff I backpatched to 9.0 that includes
pg_upgrade_support in the section title. This should avoid future
confusing. Thanks for your report.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Description: text/x-diff (417 bytes)
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Larry Leszczynski||Date: 2010-09-28 17:46:34|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 9 Mac OS X one-click install - PL/perl broken|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-09-28 16:54:03|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 large object permissions |