| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade-breaking release |
| Date: | 2025-04-24 12:37:56 |
| Message-ID: | aAowpA0MW34MDAKR@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:35:10AM -0400, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 8:12 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Do we think most people are _not_ going to use pg_upgrade now that we
> are defaulting to checksums being enabled by default in PG 18?
>
>
> I cannot imagine this would stop anyone from upgrading. It's one additional
> flag, which was already a requirement for those going the other direction in
> the past (checksums -> no checksums). And I also assume that "most people" are
> already running with checksums enabled.
>
>
> And if so, do we think we are ever going to have a
> storage-format-changing release where pg_upgrade cannot be used?
>
>
> Seems very unlikely, that would kind of go against the whole purpose of
> pg_upgrade.
When I wrote pg_upgrade, I assumed at some point the value of changing
the storage format would outweigh the value of allowing in-place
upgrades. I guess that hasn't happened yet.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2025-04-24 12:41:15 | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
| Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2025-04-24 12:35:10 | Re: pg_upgrade-breaking release |