Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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 15:46:36
Message-ID: CADK3HHLXBAXPAvd3BjPW6ewxL=PF0Or5hy9fAL9CeTCDNCjXVw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 11:39, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 8:36 AM Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have an issue with the fragment "whether they are from contrib" - my
>>> understanding at this point is that because of the way we package and
>>> version contrib it should not be necessary to copy those shared object
>>> files from the old to the new server (maybe, just maybe, with a
>>> qualification that you are upgrading between two versions that were in
>>> support during the same time period).
>>>
>>
>> Just to clarify. In no case are binaries copied from the old server to
>> the new server. Whether from contrib or otherwise.
>>
>>
> I had used "binaries" when I should have written "shared object files". I
> just imagine a DLL as being a binary file so it seems accurate but we use
> the term differently I suppose?
>

No, we are using the same term. pg_upgrade does not copy anything that was
compiled, whether it is called a DLL or otherwise.

Dave

>
> David J.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-07-29 15:49:45 Re: needless complexity in StartupXLOG
Previous Message Jan Wieck 2021-07-29 15:46:12 Re: pg_upgrade does not upgrade pg_stat_statements properly