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
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 |