| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: In-Place upgrade concept |
| Date: | 2007-07-04 00:43:14 |
| Message-ID: | 15306.1183509794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> writes:
> One thing no-one's mentioned is how we're going to deal with definitive
> incompatibilities.
I don't really think that in-place update changes that story at all.
The advice has always been "read the release notes and test your
applications before updating". The only thing that in-place update
will offer is shorter update downtime than dump/reload.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-07-04 01:06:55 | Re: Proposal: In-Place upgrade concept |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-03 22:48:40 | Re: Proposal: In-Place upgrade concept |