Re: State of support for back PG branches

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches
Date: 2005-09-30 23:01:43
Message-ID: 20050930230143.GM40138@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 09:07:45PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >A nice pg_upgrade utility would make a big difference. Clearly an
> >in-place upgrade is possible, but maintaining is hard. There are two
> >broad ways of running a pg_upgrade project - one that is entirely
> >independent of the main codebase and one that puts requirements on the
> >main codebase developers ("if you change $foo you provide code to
> >translate old $foo to new $foo"). Any feel for the relative difficulty
> >of the two approaches? And how much push-back there'd be on the latter?
> >
> >
> You can do in place upgrades with Slony-I and Mammoth Replicator.

With a lot more effort than a dump/restore, or presumably a pg_upgrade.
I'd love to see a project that uses Slony to do an in-place migration as
easy as possible. Maybe I'll get around to it in another 5 years....
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Stone 2005-09-30 23:10:32 Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort?
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-09-30 22:58:05 Re: Open items list for 8.1