From: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Upgrading a database dump/restore |
Date: | 2006-10-09 03:44:16 |
Message-ID: | 21593.24.91.171.78.1160365456.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
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.)
IMHO, *before* any such tool *can* be written, a set of rules must be
enacted regulating catalog changes. If there are no rules and no process
by which changes get approved, requiring a "was is" conversion strategy,
then the tools has to change with every major version, which will, of
course, put it at risk of losing support in the long term.
Like I said, I understand the reluctance to do these things, it isn't an
easy thing to do. Designing and planning for the future is, however, the
hallmark of a good engineer.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-09 03:55:35 | Re: Upgrading a database dump/restore |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-09 03:15:27 | Re: Casting to money |