Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: State of support for back PG branches

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches
Date: 2005-09-27 04:07:45
Message-ID: 4338C591.8060103@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>A nice pg_upgrade utility would make a big difference. Clearly an
>in-place upgrade is possible, but maintaining is hard. There are two
>broad ways of running a pg_upgrade project - one that is entirely
>independent of the main codebase and one that puts requirements on the
>main codebase developers ("if you change $foo you provide code to
>translate old $foo to new $foo"). Any feel for the relative difficulty
>of the two approaches? And how much push-back there'd be on the latter?
>  
>
You can do in place upgrades with Slony-I and Mammoth Replicator.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>Cheers,
>  Steve
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>  
>


-- 
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-09-27 04:19:36
Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches
Previous:From: Steve AtkinsDate: 2005-09-27 03:57:39
Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group