Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From John R Pierce
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?
Date
Msg-id f44163a2-0e8e-04e9-4b19-dcf0006975a0@hogranch.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?  (Ken Tanzer <ken.tanzer@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
On 5/23/2017 11:39 PM, Ken Tanzer wrote:

Can I also ask y'all a more general question about this, specifically related to how Postgres is packaged for RHEL/Centos?  I've got both 9.6 and 9.2 installed.  In this case though, it seems that the 9.2 version is privileged/selected by default.  But psql defaults to the 9.6 version.  Are there other similar things that will default to either 9.2 or 9.6?  And if so, what controls that behavior, is it easily-changeable, and/or can you go back and forth?

I've never tried running two versions at once before.  Maybe this is an isolated incident, but I'm just trying to get my mind around the concept, and know what kind of pitfalls if any to expect or beware of.  Thanks!


when you run multiple versions, you need to keep the path *and* the port straight.  each server running is on a separate port.    I have one dev box at work that runs pg 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6, all on seperate ports.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: y39chen
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] Is there possibility btree_redo with XLOG_BTREE_DELETE done betweenstandby_redo and the end of backup
Next
From: Devrim Gündüz
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Installing module for 9.6, not 9.2, on Centos?