Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >> >> > I have updated the paragraph to be:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ? ? Upgrading from PostgreSQL 8.3 has additional restrictions not present
> >> >> > ? ? when upgrading from later PostgreSQL releases. ?For example,
> >> >> > ? ? pg_upgrade will not work for a migration from 8.3 if a user column
> >> >> > ? ? is defined as:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Can you suggest other wording?
> >> >>
> >> >> hmm that seems better thanks, however I just noticed that we don't have
> >> >> a "general limitations" section. The way the docs are now done suggests
> >> >> that there are not limitations at all (except for the two warnings in
> >> >> the migration guide). Is pg_upgrade really up to the point where it can
> >> >> fully replace pg_dump & pg_restore independent of the loaded (contrib)
> >> >> or even third party modules(like postgis or custom datatypes etc)?
> >> >
> >> > Yea, that's about right. ?I can add limiations if you want. ?;-)
> >>
> >> I don't believe this. ?For one thing, I am pretty sure that if there
> >> are ABI differences between loadable modules between the old and new
> >> cluster, hilarity will ensue.
> >
> > Well, the point is that our existing code doesn't have any
> > incompatibilites that I know of. ?We could certainly add some in 9.1.
>
> Yes, or third-party vendors could add some for us. We can't guarantee
> this in general.
What is your point?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
