Horton

Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Josh berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2016-04-29T15:45:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Joshua Drake wrote:
> >Technically, this is exactly what pg_upgrade does.  I think what you
> >really mean is for the backend binary to be able to read the system
> >tables and WAL files of the old clusters --- something I can't see us
> >implementing anytime soon.
> >
> 
> For the most part, pg_upgrade is good enough. There are exceptions and it
> does need a more thorough test suite but as a whole, it works. As nice as
> being able to install 9.6 right on top of 9.5 and have 9.6 magically work,
> it is certainly not a *requirement* anymore.

Yes, the trick would be making the new 9.6 features work with the
existing 9.5 system tables that don't know about the 9.6 features.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.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 +