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 11:02:41
Message-ID: CADK3HHLZdwJinfT0N9fDy8hUd-n1MUhOSOBFyotg00Mp2jXFQw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 00:35, David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 6:52 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> I came up with the attached patch.
>>
>
> Thank you. It is an improvement but I think more could be done here (not
> exactly sure what - though removing the "copy binaries for contrib modules
> from the old server" seems like a decent second step.)
>
> I'm not sure it really needs a parenthetical, and I personally dislike
> using "Consider" to start the sentence.
>
> "Bringing extensions up to the newest version available on the new server
> can be done later using ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE (after ensuring the correct
> binaries are installed)."
>

As for the patch. What exactly is being copied ?
This is all very confusing. Some of the extensions will work perfectly fine
on the new server without an upgrade. At least one of the extensions will
appear to function perfectly fine with new binaries and old function
definitions.
Seems to me we need to do more.

Dave

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yura Sokolov 2021-07-29 11:03:18 Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-07-29 10:22:57 Re: Replace l337sp34k in comments.