Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status?
Date: 1999-09-08 19:05:20
Message-ID: 199909081905.PAA18895@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > pg_upgrade will not work in converting from <= 6.4.* to 6.5.* because
> > the on-disk date format changed in 6.5. Hopefully, 6.6 will allow
> > pg_upgrade for 6.5.* databases. We try not to change the on-disk
> > format, but sometimes we have to. MVCC required it for 6.5.*.
>
> Ok, answers my question. It would be nice to be able to say:
> pg_upgrade --source-pgdata=/var/lib/pgsql-old --pgdata=/var/lib/pgsql
> and have any version PostgreSQL database converted to the newest, but
> maybe that's a pipe dream. Sure would make upgrades easier, on
> everybody, not just RedHatters -- such as those who have large amounts
> of large objects.
>
> If I were a better C coder, and had more experience with the various
> versions' on-disk formats, I'd be happy to try to tackle it myself.
> But, I'm not that great of a C coder, nor do I know the data structures
> well enough. Oh well.

You would have to convert tons of rows of data in raw format. Seems
like dump/reload would be easier.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 1999-09-08 19:35:22 Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status?
Previous Message Lamar Owen 1999-09-08 19:04:30 Re: [HACKERS] PG_UPGRADE status?