| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations |
| Date: | 2015-05-07 23:31:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2090.1431041516@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> pg_upgrade is okay in any case because it dumps and reloads the current
>> extension's components. Doesn't matter whether there's another version
>> that is not compatible.
> For clarity - which one is "current" in this context?
> 1. The existing database's (previous extension version)
> 2. The target database's (current default extension version in the new
> PostgreSQL version)
> The answer has to be #2 since the version in the existing database no
> longer exists in the new PostgreSQL version.
You're mistaken. pg_dump --binary_upgrade does not care whether the
target database thinks that version exists or not. (It does care that
there's a compatible shared-library object, but that's not at issue
in this case.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-05-08 00:30:14 | Re: commitfest app bug/feature |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2015-05-07 23:25:54 | Re: Fixing busted citext function declarations |