Arturas Mazeika wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 05:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> >>> On 10/30/2010 7:33 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> >>>> upgrade from a 32bit 8.3 server to a 64 bit 9.0 server, which isn't
> >>>> going to work without a dump/restore. With pg_upgrade, the two builds
> >>>> need to be from the same platform, same word size, and have the same
> >>>> configuration for certain settings like integer_datetimes.
> >> Can anyone suggest a way pg_upgrade could detect an upgrade from a
> >> 32-bit to 64-bit cpu and throw an error?
> > Surely it does that already, as a result of comparing pg_control
> > contents.
> The HTML manual might need an update or a small clarification too.
> Currently, it does not seem that the manual explicitly states that
> ``pg_upgrade is not applicable in upgrading 32bit systems to 64bit
> ones''. A good place to write such a sentence would be at the beginning
> of , at the intro of F.32. pg_upgrade. Maybe the documentation
> already implicitly states that in F.32.4. Limitations in Migrating from
> PostgreSQL 8.3 section of  by this description:
> ``For Windows users, note that due to different integer datetimes
> settings used by the one-click installer and the MSI installer, it is
> only possible to upgrade from version 8.3 of the one-click distribution
> to version 8.4 or later of the one-click distribution. It is not
> possible to upgrade from the MSI installer to the one-click installer.''
> Unfortunately, I could not understand in full detail the above.
>  http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/pgupgrade.html
I have added a mention about 32/64-bit isssues to the pg_upgrade manual
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
Description: text/x-diff (904 bytes)
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2010-11-12 02:49:44|
|Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #5650: Postgres service showing
as stopped when in fact it is running|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-11-11 22:12:04|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5749: Case sensivity of names of sequences.|