Re: pg_upgrade-breaking release

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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