On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=E4=E4ri=E4inen_Anssi?= <anssi.kaariai...@thl.fi> writes: >> This has the side effect that you can also have downgrade scripts. I >> don't know if this is designed or just coincidental, so thought it >> would be worth mentioning. >> The worst case is that if you are upgrading from 1.2 to 2.0 the path >> is 1.2 -> 1.1 -> 2.0, even if there exists a path 1.2 -> 1.8 -> 1.9 -> >> 2.0. This could potentially result in data loss, if the downgrade >> drops some columns or something like that. > > Hmm. That seems like it would require a rather pathological collection > of upgrade scripts. In particular why would you have a one-step upgrade > from 1.1 to 2.0 but no short path from 1.2? >
Say we have 20 versions, with up- and downgrade scripts between consecutive versions, and a fast path from 5 to 20. if we are at version 6, it would go 6->5->20. if 6->5 drops a table, we`re in trouble. Greetings Marcin Mańk -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
