Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0

From: Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing Lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date: 2013-05-27 03:14:32
Message-ID: CAFNqd5WxNGd1HfArTbqFwR0hmuY2rYASTrrb3RbSera4+fcxMw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The assumption that we ought to plan expressly for an incompatibility that
essentially discards pg_upgrade seems premature, particularly in advance of
would-be solutions that, in some cases, mightn't actually work.

If pg_upgrade doesn't work, then, at present, the plausible solutions are
to either dump and restore, which might take way too long, or use one of
the logical replication systems (e.g. - Slony, Londiste, or similar, in the
absence of the would-be built-in logical replication).

Unfortunately, there are significant scenarios where none of these work,
particularly for data warehouse-like systems where the database size is so
large that the users cannot afford the disk space to construct a replica.
It sure seems premature to intentionally leave that set of users out in the
cold.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gurjeet Singh 2013-05-27 04:48:25 Re: Processing long AND/OR lists
Previous Message Christopher Browne 2013-05-27 02:59:43 Re: Processing long AND/OR lists