Re: Better Upgrades - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Better Upgrades
Date
Msg-id 9A51702F-D9AC-4A80-A030-46B25BE88619@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Better Upgrades  (Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>)
Responses Re: Better Upgrades  (David Fetter <david@fetter.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 02 Mar 2018, at 12:59, Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu> wrote:

> My feeling is that worrying about in-place binary upgrades today is
> wasted effort. Already the window for installations where this is
> useful is narrow -- you have to be big enough that the resources for
> deploying a second instance is significant but not so big that the
> downtime and risk is untenable.

I might be colorblind from $dayjob, but I don’t think that these installations
(data warehouses et.al) are that uncommon.  They are also installations that
risk staying on an old version due to upgrades being non-trivial (not saying
that in-place is trivial, just that there are places where it may make sense).

> I have the feeling that in-place
> binary upgrades are going to end up sapping developer time

Having worked on supporting the 8.2->8.3 on-disk format change in pg_upgrade
for GPDB, I am not arguing against that.  Not at all.

cheers ./daniel

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: Online enabling of checksums
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort