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

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions
Date
Msg-id pC-NMmh4vQLQP76YTwY4AuoD4OdNw9egikekyQpXFpgqmTlGjIZXOTd2W5RDZPpRski5N3ADRrLYgLk6QUuvmuT5fWC9acPAYyDU1AVxJcU=@yesql.se
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 Tuesday, March 19, 2019 12:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> I noticed a few things that seem a bit fishy about pg_upgrade.

Attached are three patches which takes a stab at the issues raised here (and
the discussion in this thread):

0001 - Enforces the version check to the full version including the minor
0002 - Tests for all the binaries that pg_upgrade executes
0003 - Make -B default to CWD and remove the exec_path check

Defaulting to CWD for the new bindir has the side effect that the default
sockdir is in the bin/ directory which may be less optimal.

cheers ./daniel


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix XML handling with DOCTYPE
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Removing [Merge]Append nodes which contain a single subpath