The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > I am loathe to even bring this up, but with two messages today about it, I am
> > going to be short and sweet:
> >
> > We don't have a reasonable upgrade path. ASCII dump->install
> > new->initdb->restore is not a reasonable upgrade. It is confusing to the
> > newbie, and should be fixed. We used to have an upgrade path in pg_upgrade
> > - -- but it no longer works (but it was most definitely a fine effort for its
> > time, Bruce!). Furthermore, the dump/restore cycle is a pain in the neck when
> > tables get larger than a few hundred megabytes. It's worse when the newer
> > version won't properly restore from the old dump -- and you have to edit,
> > potentially by hand, a multi-gigabyte dump to get it to restore.
>
> Personally ... I just upgraded 13 gig worth of databases using
> dump/restore, didn't have to end a single file, in less then 1.5hrs from
> start to finish ... *shrug*
On the otherhand, I just had a user/adminsitrator decide to upgrade an
instance of postgres on a seconadry server for testing. But he was using
X and never noticed that he was upgrading our primary production server.
In the end, no data was lost. But I had to pick up the pieces, and it
took me a somewhat more more than 1.5 hours to do so, as no plans for
downtime or transition had been made at all. I would have preferred a
clean upgrade path.
Of course, the adminstrator should have known better. And you could
argue that the sysadmin has demonstrated that he has too many privelges.
At least one of those statments is true. But I still would rather have a
seamless upgrade.
--
Karl
