Re: pg_upgrade invalid option

From: Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade invalid option
Date: 2010-06-12 17:43:10
Message-ID: AANLkTimYezMWdU0Z_iUE1sT0BZbPYF0X4sjLPrDZIROj@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On 12 June 2010 18:15, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
>> >> The only options available are:
>> >>
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> Are those instructions for an older version?
>> >>
>> >
>> > That's Bruce's book which is probably 8 or 9 years old now. It's
>> > almost certainly referring to the old pg_upgrade shell script from
>> > years ago.
>> >
>>
>> Ah, unfortunately that's the first result in Google.  I've resorted to
>
> I am sure that will change soon.  :-)  The right URL is now #7 on
> Google:
>
>        http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/pgupgrade.html
>
>> restoring from a full backup :(  I don't think I could use it for
>> upgrading from beta 1 to beta 2 anyway by the looks of things.  The
>> binary directories are updated since they share the same version
>> number.
>
> You certainly could have.  The docs say:
>
>        F.31.1. Supported Versions
>
>        pg_upgrade supports upgrades from 8.3.X and later to the current major
>        release of PostgreSQL, including snapshot and alpha releases.
>
> In fact, we were hoping people would test pg_upgrade during the required
> beta2 catalog change.
>

How would that work if the beta1 binaries are overwritten by the beta2
binaries since they both share the same version number?

Thom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-12 17:46:34 Re: pg_upgrade invalid option
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-06-12 17:17:57 Re: Cognitive dissonance