Re: Why Hard-Coded Version 9.1 In Names?

From: Gregg Jaskiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bobby Dewitt <Bdewitt(at)appriss(dot)com>
Cc: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>, Jerry Richards <jerry(dot)richards(at)teotech(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why Hard-Coded Version 9.1 In Names?
Date: 2012-02-02 07:23:01
Message-ID: CAJY59_jTJGBP6Fuyq=-3o-z45th-vbadiALZc=6LdDOr3Ym3OQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Its because of pg_upgrade, 'in place' upgrade capabilities that are in
pg since 8.4. For that to work you need both old and new (current) set
of postgresql binaries. Etc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Venkat Balaji 2012-02-02 07:50:59 Re: [GENERA]: Postgresql-9.1.1 synchronous replication issue
Previous Message Raghavendra 2012-02-02 07:01:18 Re: [GENERA]: Postgresql-9.1.1 synchronous replication issue