Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christopher Browne
Subject Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0
Date
Msg-id CAFNqd5WxNGd1HfArTbqFwR0hmuY2rYASTrrb3RbSera4+fcxMw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Planning incompatibilities for Postgres 10.0  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
The assumption that we ought to plan expressly for an incompatibility that essentially discards pg_upgrade seems premature, particularly in advance of would-be solutions that, in some cases, mightn't actually work.

If pg_upgrade doesn't work, then, at present, the plausible solutions are to either dump and restore, which might take way too long, or use one of the logical replication systems (e.g. - Slony, Londiste, or similar, in the absence of the would-be built-in logical replication).

Unfortunately, there are significant scenarios where none of these work, particularly for data warehouse-like systems where the database size is so large that the users cannot afford the disk space to construct a replica.  It sure seems premature to intentionally leave that set of users out in the cold.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Christopher Browne
Date:
Subject: Re: Processing long AND/OR lists
Next
From: Gurjeet Singh
Date:
Subject: Re: Processing long AND/OR lists