From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, bvctravel(at)yahoo(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-7.4RC1 - unrecognized privilege type |
Date: | 2003-11-09 02:16:25 |
Message-ID: | 29953.1068344185@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I agree, and this brings up a question that I've pondered before. Why do
> we ever *require* and initdb when only metadata has changed (i.e. the
> contents of the system catalogs, not catalog or page structure)?
In some cases we have to do it because there is a backend code change
that's dependent on the metadata change; that is, the backend will not
function correctly if you haven't fixed the catalog contents. The
reverse direction (old backend, new catalogs) is also dangerous. The
point of having a catalog version number is to ensure that the backend
and catalogs are in sync.
It's possible that we could devise some upgrade procedure that gets from
old backend/old catalogs to new backend/new catalogs without an initdb,
but I tend to think that this is basically the problem pg_upgrade is
supposed to solve. I'm not eager to spend time on a "pg_simple_upgrade"
procedure.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-09 02:28:16 | Re: Autocomplete <TAB> on Postgres7.4beta5 not working? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-11-09 01:56:35 | Re: [HACKERS] postgresql-7.4RC1 - unrecognized privilege type |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kurt Roeckx | 2003-11-09 02:24:00 | Re: Call for port reports |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-09 02:02:46 | Re: Call for port reports |