From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades |
Date: | 2017-04-13 19:02:27 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEzV4E3xcn825PMMpuyQAGE2syDRYTNpLW0x5dN06aATWw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/10/17 11:30, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > After you've run pg_upgrade, you have to loop through all your databases
> > and do an "ALTER EXTENSION abc UPDATE" once for each extension.
> >
> > Is there a reason we shouldn't have pg_upgrade emit a script that does
> > this, similar to how it emits a script to run ANALYZE?
>
> Shouldn't pg_dump do this, and perhaps by default?
> If I restore a dump into another instance, I need to upgrade all my
> extensions to that installations's versions, no? That's not particular
> to pg_upgrade.
>
>
Sure, there's an argument to be made for that. But pg_dump (or in this
case, it would more be pg_restore I guess) also doesn't run ANALYZE or
generate a script to do that, does it? ISTM that we have already decided
that pg_upgrade has a different requirement on providing those things,
whereas pg_dump/pg_restore is more of a low-level tool where people have to
figure more things out themselves.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-04-13 19:04:21 | Re: pg_upgrade vs extension upgrades |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-13 18:05:43 | Re: Cutting initdb's runtime (Perl question embedded) |