| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)hk>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Major upgrade of PostgreSQL and MySQL |
| Date: | 2013-09-13 17:55:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=2N3B-z9vTRfJ6BM26AOJfS779i7CfeLhUOgKepCfabOg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
>
> On Friday, September 13, 2013, Patrick Dung wrote:
>>
>> >What? That's absolutely *not* required for pg_upgrade to work. In
>> >general, I would recommend that you make a copy of the database, but
>> >it's certainly not required.
>>
>> I mean the old version and new version would need to take up disk space on
>> the server.
>> Thus roughly doubled the disk space used.
>
>
> And I'm telling you that pg_upgrade does NOT require that. It has a mode
> which allows an in-place upgrade (using hard links) that only requires a bit
> of extra disk space- certainly no where near double on a database of any
> size.
Yeah that was one of the major reasons FOR pg upgrade was that it
could upgrade in place and not require a complete copy of the db.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Igor Neyman | 2013-09-13 18:02:30 | Re: Major upgrade of PostgreSQL and MySQL |
| Previous Message | Patrick Dung | 2013-09-13 17:54:40 | Re: Major upgrade of PostgreSQL and MySQL |