Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=) writes:
> > Will there be a clean upgrade path this time, or
> > yet another dump-initdb-restore procedure?
> Still TBD, I think --- right now pg_upgrade would still work, but if
> Vadim finishes WAL there's going to have to be a dump/reload for that.
> Another certain dump/reload in the foreseeable future will come from
> adding tablespace support/changing file naming conventions.
> > Unclean upgrades are one of major disadvantages of postgresql FTTB,
> > IMHO.
> You can always stick to Postgres 6.5 :-). There are certain features
> that just cannot be added without redoing the on-disk table format.
> I don't think we will ever want to promise "no more dump/reload";
> if we do, it will mean that Postgres has stopped improving.
Not necesarrily - one could either design a on disk format with room
for expansion or create migration tools to add new fields.
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Ange Michel POZZO||Date: 2000-08-29 16:11:24|
|Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] cannot vacuum a database !|
|Previous:||From: Alfred Perlstein||Date: 2000-08-29 15:50:41|
|Subject: Re: Ignore when using COPY FROM|