Re: Upgrading a database dump/restore

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading a database dump/restore
Date: 2006-10-05 23:56:27
Message-ID: 13687.1160092587@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> Not to cause any arguments, but this is sort a standard discussion that
> gets brought up periodically and I was wondering if there has been any
> "softening" of the attitudes against an "in place" upgrade, or movement to
> not having to dump and restore for upgrades.

Whenever someone actually writes a pg_upgrade, we'll institute a policy
to restrict changes it can't handle. But until we have a credible
upgrade tool it's pointless to make any such restriction. ("Credible"
means "able to handle system catalog restructurings", IMHO --- without
that, you'd not have any improvement over the current rules for minor
releases.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-06 00:09:03 Re: continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-10-05 23:51:35 Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types