Re: problem with self built postgres 9.0.9 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Gabriele Bulfon
Subject Re: problem with self built postgres 9.0.9
Date
Msg-id 555076151.2583.1590998849684@www
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: problem with self built postgres 9.0.9  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
I will consider the upgrade, thanks a lot!

Gabriele





Da: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
A: Gabriele Bulfon <gbulfon@sonicle.com>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Data: 29 maggio 2020 16.18.44 CEST
Oggetto: Re: problem with self built postgres 9.0.9


On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 7:08 AM Gabriele Bulfon <gbulfon@sonicle.com> wrote:
Amazing! Rebuilt without -O and it worked like a charm!
Thanks, at the moment I need to stick to 9.0.9 on this machine to be able to reuse the same database files.
 
 
Just to be thorough.  You can update to 9.0.23 (i.e., build against the tip of the 9.0.x set of branches) and still use the same database files.  For all versions (starting with v10 the version has only two components, not three) changing the final digit in the version is a code-only change.
 
There is no material difference to risk for building 9.0.23 against the newer O/S and compiler, etc, than it is to build 9.0.9 against the newer O/S and compiler, etc.  You assumed basically maximum risk when you choose to keep using version 9.0 and upgraded everything else around it to versions that were possibly never tested against it - and if they were tested it is more likely they were tested against 9.0.23 as it is years more current.
 
David J.
 

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Bernhard Beroun"
Date:
Subject: Vanishing unique constraint
Next
From: "Andrus"
Date:
Subject: Re: How to start slave after pg_basebackup. Why min_wal_size and wal_keep_segments are duplicated