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.
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 |