Re: 9.1 to 9.2 requires a dump/reload?

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:32PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote:
> Hello
>
> Can you remember where did you read that? There is no mention of GIST on
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/upgrading.html and a database
> which uses GIST indexes *seems* to work just finde after upgrading with
> pg_upgrade.

Hash, Gin, and GiST index binary format had changes from 8.3->8.4.
Running pg_upgrade or pg_upgrade --check will warn about any indexes
that need rebuilding. If pg_upgrade didn't report any problems, you are
fine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> bye,
>
> -christian-
>
>
> Am Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:02:13 -0700
> schrieb Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> > pg_upgrade has worked fine for several releases. I believe that the
> > only time when pg_upgrade isn't a viable option is for some types of
> > GIST indices.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > wrote:
> > > I was just looking at
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-2.html and it
> > > mentioned that a dump/reload cycle was required to upgrade from a
> > > previous release. I just got done telling some of my coworkers
> > > that PG had been bitten by this enough times that they were done
> > > with it. Am I wrong? Is this normal?
> > >
> > > I see that pg_upgrade is an option. Having never used how long
> > > should I expect pg_upgrade to take? Obviously we'll measure it in
> > > our environment, but it'd be nice to have a ballpark figure.
> > >
> > > Nik
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +