From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and extra_float_digits |
Date: | 2010-05-17 01:09:45 |
Message-ID: | 201005170109.o4H19jX02044@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Uh, that is not actually a problem. You just need to set
> > extra_float_digits=-3 to create the dump file, which is only done once
> > for each major version. You can _load_ that dump file into an
> > unmodified old cluster and test just fine. I will write up some
> > instructions in the next few days.
> >
> >
>
> You are missing the point I was making. A buildfarm run does not
> normally have available to it any binaries for a version other that the
> one it is building. There is no notion of a multi-branch buildfarm run.
> Each run is for a particular branch and is a separate miracle. So I'm
> not concerned about the structure of the dump file but about what will
> be used to load it into an old cluster during a buildfarm run.
Thank you. I understand now.
Imagine finding out on the build farm right away when we break binary
compatibility --- that would be cool. However, that might be overkill.
My testing seems to be working just fine. In fact the only diff I see
is:
< CREATE PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql;
---
> CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURAL LANGUAGE plpgsql;
and that is a known change. I might end up adding my regression dump
files to our ftp site (400k for each major version), and just having
people use them for testing.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-05-17 01:23:13 | Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |
Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2010-05-17 01:07:02 | Re: Row-level Locks & SERIALIZABLE transactions, postgres vs. Oracle |