Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader

Hey Bruce,

Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 to
10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I misunderstanding?

The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 to 9.2
is considered a major version change or not. I think most users would
assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is in 9.x
to 9.y.

Thanks,
Jim

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >
> > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/pgupgrade.html
> > Description:
> >
> > If a reader who is unfamiliar with PostgreSQL&#39;s versioning (where
> 9.5 and
> > 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is
> unclear if
> > they need to use pg_upgrade to migrate from 9.5 to 9.6, for example.
> >
> > The documentation says upgrading &quot;from 9.6.3 to the current major
> release&quot;
> > requires pg_upgrade, but not &quot;from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3&quot;.
> >
> > The problem with that language is that the current release of PostgreSQL
> is
> > 10. So is pg_upgrade required to upgrade from 9.6.3 to current (10)
> because
> > 9 and 10 are major versions or because 9.6 and 10.0 are major versions?
> (the
> > latter).
> >
> > It would be clearer if the documentation covered all three cases:
> > 9.6.3 -&gt; 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -&gt; 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used
> > 9.6.2 -&gt; 9.6.3: pg_upgrade not needed
> >
> > Or if the documentation simply noted that the second decimal is
> considered a
> > major release.
>
> How is this attached patch?
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
>
> + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
>