| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
| Date: | 2013-11-20 20:13:24 |
| Message-ID: | 528D17E4.70707@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/20/13, 11:31 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Couldn't that be an issue for people who have multiple major versions of
> binaries installed? In particular, the "default" on the system for psql
> might be 9.3 while the cluster you're trying to recover may be 9.2. Of
> course, in that case you might say to use the 9.2 psql, which would be
> fair, but what if you're looking to get the data out of the 9.2 DB and
> into the 9.3? In that case, we'd recommend using the 9.3 pg_dump.
Right. And also, in emergency situations you might have a custom built
postgres binary lying around in a separate path that includes a patch
from a mailing list you're supposed to test or something. Best not to
make that even more difficult.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2013-11-20 20:14:11 | Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-20 20:07:17 | Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs |