Re: Major upgrade of PostgreSQL and MySQL

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)hk>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Major upgrade of PostgreSQL and MySQL
Date: 2013-10-05 14:19:05
Message-ID: 20131005141905.GA21337@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 01:54:40AM +0800, Patrick Dung wrote:
> 1. In the past, I have an impression that it requires double of the database
> size.
> Because the manual present in a way that it 'must' need to hold the old and new
> database cluster.
> But it does not mention the benefit of using hard links to save disk space and
> speed.
> I think the documentation could put a note at the beginning for new users.
>
> 2. Also I think the documentation should provide more info for users that use
> packages.
> Most likely the system would do dependency checking and may refuse two install
> two versions at the same time.
> So uses need to install the new version in another location.
> More documentation should be provided for this part (e.g for users using Linux
> rpm/deb or FreeBSD ports).
>
> 3. But the way, if users is using Windows, is the link option still works?

I have applied the attached documentation addition to mention that link
mode uses less disk space, and that junction points are used on Windows.
Backpatched to 9.3.

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

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

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg_upgrade.diff text/x-diff 1.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2013-10-05 14:20:46 Re: Major upgrade of PostgreSQL and MySQL
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-10-04 17:49:31 Re: Reasons to reorder results *within* a transaction?