Re: pg_upgrade

From: Tomasz Szypowski <tomasz(dot)szypowski(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade
Date: 2019-03-18 22:43:13
Message-ID: CACmJi2J2stMNKuBm=sLrjhhJh68AWEoDCnAM5UJ5rj1N=wBKTw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

As far as I remember pg_upgrade is from 11.2 rest is from 9.5. This is due
to the fact, that the version is secured, only md5, md5 hashed and so on. I
compared the code and didn’t see much difference in pg_upgrade core, but
give me some days and I will test it using binaries from 11.2

Regards
Thomas

W dniu pon., 18.03.2019 o 23:37 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> napisał(a):

> Tomasz Szypowski <tomasz(dot)szypowski(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > So what set it to false?
>
> I was hoping you'd tell me ;-). If it's not false in the old cluster,
> though, that theory is all wet.
>
> I wonder if you're somehow using the wrong version of pg_upgrade or
> pg_dump. There are cross-checks about that in pg_upgrade, but it
> looks like they only check the major version number --- if we'd changed
> anything about this in a minor release (which I think we did), it might
> be possible to get burnt if you were using pg_upgrade or pg_dump from a
> prior minor release. What are all the versions involved, exactly?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
pozdrawiam
Tomek

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-18 22:54:12 Re: pg_upgrade
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-03-18 22:37:28 Re: pg_upgrade