Tom Lane wrote:
>"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@cuci.nl> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It's conceivable that updating to something more current than 9.0.4
>>> would get you out of this --- we've fixed quite a number of WAL replay
>>> bugs in the last two years.
>> I see that there is a 9.0.13, but that would be a source upgrade, since Debian
>> doesn't provide later than 9.0.4 AFAICS.
>That's a bit hard to believe, especially given that 9.0.13 fixes a
>rather major security bug. Any packager that isn't offering something
>more current than 9.0.4 is *seriously* misfeasant.
Well, it might be such that this was only in unstable at some point in time,
and by the time they wanted to include it in testing, they skipped 9.0
and went for 9.1 instead.
>> I suppose upgrading to 9.1.9 is not recommended in this state, or is it?
>You can't -- only a 9.0.x server will even try to start up against this
>DB.
Well, there is something like pg_upgradecluster, which probably will
attempt a binary conversion of the database, but I guess that in this
state that is hazardous at best. Besides, the standard tool doesn't
seem to like tablespaces (and I'm using one).
I'll look into trying a 9.0.13 first.
--
Stephen.
"Reality is merely an illusion,albeit a very persistent one." -- Albert Einstein
