Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Upgrading rant.

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>,Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Date: 2003-01-05 02:12:05
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0301041202050.8249-100000@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> This would require a nontrivial amount of work (notably, we'd have to
> be able to get pg_dump to run against a standalone backend) but I don't
> think I'd trust pg_upgrade as a production-grade tool until its
> invocation method looks like the above.

I would recommend requiring users to do the schema dump before upgrading
the binaries, so they'd do

pg_dumpall -s > schemadump
pg_ctl stop
[upgrade binaries]
pg_upgrade --option=schemadump
pg_ctl start

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-05 02:21:40
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-01-05 02:11:37
Subject: Re: next set of SSL - ideas?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group