| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly |
| Date: | 2021-07-29 18:19:17 |
| Message-ID: | 202107291819.ewb44frhsac6@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Jul-29, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > I suggest "can be upgraded" rather than "should be upgraded" because
> > we're not making a recommendation, merely stating the fact that it is
> > possible to do so.
>
> Why not recommend it? I was going to suggest that we actually run alter
> extension upgrade ... on all of them as a solution.
>
> What are the downsides to upgrading them all by default ? AFAIK if they
> need upgrading this should run all of the SQL scripts, if they don't then
> this should be a NO-OP.
I'm not aware of any downsides, and I think it would be a good idea to
do so, but I also think that it would be good to sort out the docs
precisely (a backpatchable doc change, IMV) and once that is done we can
discuss how to improve pg_upgrade so that users no longer need to do
that (a non-backpatchable code change). Incremental improvements and
all that ...
--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"La libertad es como el dinero; el que no la sabe emplear la pierde" (Alvarez)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-07-29 18:28:55 | Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2021-07-29 18:14:56 | Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly |