Re: bump minimum supported version of psql and pg_{dump,dumpall,upgrade} to v10

From: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bump minimum supported version of psql and pg_{dump,dumpall,upgrade} to v10
Date: 2026-04-08 17:24:29
Message-ID: CADkLM=fyg1gDtq7AH7N1yazJfdMSdeY8=TYrfDaGqT8hRCgzRw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> > I wonder whether we ought to sunset some of that code too, and
> > if so how to draw the line on minimum archive version to support.
>

I'm assuming that the need to restore such very old dumpfiles is forensic
or compliance in nature, so we'd want to give people some recourse for
those files going forward.

> I guess people wanting to upgrade from
> ancient versions can do it in multiple hops.

+1

It would help if we provided some small documentation on how to do that. It
could be as simple as a docbook table mapping various postgres versions to
the highest version a) a live database can be pg_upgraded to and b) a
dumpfile can be pg_restored to. But it could also include a script to
re-dump an old dumpfile to a newer dump version. I'd be happy to take a
swing at that if nobody else is interested.

> At the same time, I
> wouldn't want to do this every year. It's been 5 years since he last
> time we did this, and that seems about the right interval.
>

+1 to a 5 year cadence.

> I guess I'll have to teach the buildfarm's cross-version upgrade module
> what old versions are supported by which release.
>

Which is a second use for that table I just proposed.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2026-04-08 17:31:15 Re: bump minimum supported version of psql and pg_{dump,dumpall,upgrade} to v10
Previous Message Andres Freund 2026-04-08 17:22:41 Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]