Re: Re: Hot standby 9.2.6 -> 9.2.6 PANIC: WAL contains references to invalid pages

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matheus de Oliveira <matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: jlrando <jose(dot)luis(dot)rando(dot)calvo(at)ericsson(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: Hot standby 9.2.6 -> 9.2.6 PANIC: WAL contains references to invalid pages
Date: 2014-06-12 03:14:54
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQ_u7Up-nJzsBKU7R+oc8acdq3D0jm2VXbJCfc53oMBLw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Matheus de Oliveira
<matioli(dot)matheus(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:10 AM, jlrando
> <jose(dot)luis(dot)rando(dot)calvo(at)ericsson(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Perform an upgrade of this DB will require a
>> lot of time because the only certified DB version for this application is
>> 9.2.6.
>
>
> This simple makes no sense for PG release versioning schema/policy, see [1].
>
> Following schema X.Y.Z of a PG release, you may "certifies" an application
> to work on version X.Y only, the Z number means the release (bug-fix/patch
> basically), and you should **always** be using the most higher Z for your
> X.Y version (in the case of 9.2, you should be using 9.2.8 already, no
> excuses). In summary, you can always upgrade from Z to Z+1 without
> compatibility issues. Of course, read the release notes to check if there is
> some maintenance needed after the upgrade.
>
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
The same major versions (X.Y releases) are guaranteed to be
disk-compatible and new minor releases only contain bug fixes. So
updating is only a matter of installing the new binaries and then
restart the server. By updating always to the latest available version
you protect as well your application from the latest bugs found.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vince.kavanagh 2014-06-12 09:25:50 BUG #10623: Installation failure
Previous Message ron 2014-06-11 18:32:51 BUG #10622: PLPerl extenstion install failure - why is it asking ActivePerl?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2014-06-12 03:25:59 Few observations in replication slots related code
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-06-12 02:37:36 Re: API change advice: Passing plan invalidation info from the rewriter into the planner?