| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrading a database dump/restore |
| Date: | 2006-10-05 23:56:27 |
| Message-ID: | 13687.1160092587@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mark Woodward" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> Not to cause any arguments, but this is sort a standard discussion that
> gets brought up periodically and I was wondering if there has been any
> "softening" of the attitudes against an "in place" upgrade, or movement to
> not having to dump and restore for upgrades.
Whenever someone actually writes a pg_upgrade, we'll institute a policy
to restrict changes it can't handle. But until we have a credible
upgrade tool it's pointless to make any such restriction. ("Credible"
means "able to handle system catalog restructurings", IMHO --- without
that, you'd not have any improvement over the current rules for minor
releases.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-06 00:09:03 | Re: continuing daily testing of dbt2 against postgresql |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-05 23:51:35 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |