From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Pg_upgrade and collation |
Date: | 2016-06-17 22:01:59 |
Message-ID: | 20160617220159.GD19359@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 05:51:54PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The attached patch documents that pg_upgrade requires old/new servers to
> > use compatibile collation library versions as well.
>
> I think this is way too thin to be helpful:
Well, this is a much larger issue than pg_upgrade, e.g. moving a data
directory from one cluster to another with a different collation library
version could also cause problems, and I don't know that is documented
at all.
If we want to go larger, we have to do this in a more central location.
>
> > --- 61,68 ----
> > checking for compatible compile-time settings, including 32/64-bit
> > binaries. It is important that
> > any external modules are also binary compatible, though this cannot
> > ! be checked by <application>pg_upgrade</>. Compatible collation
> > ! library versions must also be used.
> > </para>
>
> I think it would be useful to indicate what to do if they are not
> compatible.
The indexes don't work reliably. We don't document what happens if
shared objects don't match either, but again, if we want to clarify
this, we need to do it more centrally. Ideas?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-06-17 22:03:14 | Re: pg_rewind option clarification |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-06-17 21:51:54 | Re: Pg_upgrade and collation |