> "Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes:
>> Not to cause any arguments, but this is sort a standard discussion that
>> gets brought up periodically and I was wondering if there has been any
>> "softening" of the attitudes against an "in place" upgrade, or movement
>> to
>> not having to dump and restore for upgrades.
>
> Whenever someone actually writes a pg_upgrade, we'll institute a policy
> to restrict changes it can't handle. But until we have a credible
> upgrade tool it's pointless to make any such restriction. ("Credible"
> means "able to handle system catalog restructurings", IMHO --- without
> that, you'd not have any improvement over the current rules for minor
> releases.)
IMHO, *before* any such tool *can* be written, a set of rules must be
enacted regulating catalog changes. If there are no rules and no process
by which changes get approved, requiring a "was is" conversion strategy,
then the tools has to change with every major version, which will, of
course, put it at risk of losing support in the long term.
Like I said, I understand the reluctance to do these things, it isn't an
easy thing to do. Designing and planning for the future is, however, the
hallmark of a good engineer.
