Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions
Date
Msg-id b659c1df-c37a-52da-da7f-e0659c34c92a@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_upgrade version checking questions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-03-19 00:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> 2. check_cluster_versions() insists that the target version be the
> same major version as pg_upgrade itself, but is that really good enough?
> As things stand, it looks like pg_upgrade 11.3 would happily use pg_dump
> 11.1, or vice versa.

I'd hesitate to tie this down too much.  It's possible that either the
client or the server package cannot currently be upgraded because of
some other dependencies.  In fact, a careful packager might as a result
of a change like this tie the client and server packages together with
an exact version match.  This has the potential to make the global
dependency hell worse.

> 3. Actually, I'm kind of wondering why pg_upgrade has a --new-bindir
> option at all, rather than just insisting on finding the new-version
> executables in the same directory it is in.  This seems like, at best,
> a hangover from before it got into core.  Even if you don't want to
> remove the option, we could surely provide a useful default setting
> based on find_my_exec.

Previously discussed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1304710184.28821.9.camel%40vanquo.pezone.net
 (Summary: right)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums