Re: Better Upgrades

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Better Upgrades
Date: 2018-03-05 10:18:20
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 02 Mar 2018, at 12:59, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:

> My feeling is that worrying about in-place binary upgrades today is
> wasted effort. Already the window for installations where this is
> useful is narrow -- you have to be big enough that the resources for
> deploying a second instance is significant but not so big that the
> downtime and risk is untenable.

I might be colorblind from $dayjob, but I don’t think that these installations
(data warehouses are that uncommon. They are also installations that
risk staying on an old version due to upgrades being non-trivial (not saying
that in-place is trivial, just that there are places where it may make sense).

> I have the feeling that in-place
> binary upgrades are going to end up sapping developer time

Having worked on supporting the 8.2->8.3 on-disk format change in pg_upgrade
for GPDB, I am not arguing against that. Not at all.

cheers ./daniel

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2018-03-05 10:19:05 Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2018-03-05 10:09:02 Re: Online enabling of checksums