From: | nigel(dot)andersen(at)gmx(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | psql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Upgrading 9.1.17 to which version? |
Date: | 2019-05-17 11:06:11 |
Message-ID: | trinity-f760fc02-a48a-492b-8e54-13bb35621ad9-1558091171476@3c-app-mailcom-bs16 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
>>I spent most of yesterday trying to get 9.6.13 installed from the PostgreSQL Yum repository and finally >>got it working with the initdb stuff stored on a non-default dedicated partition (RAID10 array) only to >>find that psql didn't work and was complaining about a missing libpq.so.5. Not sure if that's a common >>problem?
>
>What packages did you install?
>
Initially, postgresql96.x86_64, postgresql96-server.x86_64, postgresql96-contrib.x86_64 all via Yum. Then when psql was complaining about the missing library, I also tried installing postgresql96-libs.x86_64 via yum, which reported "nothing to do". Despite naming the four packages, yum only appeared to actually install two of them, postgresql96-server and postgresql96-contrib. A search for libpq.so.5 after the various attempts to install showed nothing on the server. I then downloaded the postgresql96-libs-9.6.13-1PGDG.rhel7.x86_64.rpm direct from the repository and tried to install that on it's own via rpm but that reported that it was already installed.
In the end, I yum removed all postgresql related files and deleted any postgresql related files/directories on the file system then manually installed the libs rpm outside yum, before re-installing the original three packages and hey presto, all working fine this time around and yum list installed shows them all in the list of installed packages.
>>My (admittedly loose) logic tells me that upgrading from 9.1.x to 9.6.x is probably a safer option than >>making the leap up to 10.x or 11.x
>>
>No, not really.
Yup, moving straight to 11.x would definitely be a better long term bet and I may well try migrating one of these db's across to it now I've eeked out a bit of breathing space.
>>but I wonder whether that might be an easier/more reliable option from an install and point of view and >>certainly preferable in the long term. Any advice on where to go?
>11.x would be best, since it's EOL is furthest in the future.
>9.6 would be best, because it's had more bug-fix releases.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-05-17 13:30:05 | Re: FATAL: SMgrRelation hashtable corrupted |
Previous Message | nigel.andersen | 2019-05-17 11:04:16 | Re: Upgrading 9.1.17 to which version? |