| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rich Shepard <rshepard(at)appl-ecosys(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |
| Date: | 2007-01-29 23:47:46 |
| Message-ID: | D90C0999-5812-4CA0-919B-63CCFA8FEE91@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
On Jan 30, 2007, at 8:38 , Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>> At one point there was discussion about using changes to the first
>> digit
>> to indicate that a dump and restore was needed because of an on disk
>> format change and that changes to the second digit would indicate
>> that
>> only catalog entries have changed and that an upgrade tool (that
>> doesn't
>> exist yet) could be used to make the changes with minimal downtime.
>
> Bruno,
>
> So, to migrate from -8.1.4 to -8.2.1 I don't need to dump and
> restore?
It was *discussed*. 8.1 to 8.2 (as does any move from M.x to M.y
where x ≠ y) requires a dump and reload.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rich Shepard | 2007-01-29 23:51:54 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |
| Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2007-01-29 23:38:57 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rich Shepard | 2007-01-29 23:51:54 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |
| Previous Message | Rich Shepard | 2007-01-29 23:38:57 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 |