On 02/11/2016 04:59 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
>> No, that is not an improvement --- see my previous comment:
>>> We could get more sophisticated by checking the catalog version number
>>> where the format was changed, but that doesn't seem worth it, and is
>>> overly complex because we get the catalog version number from
>>> pg_controldata, so you would be adding a dependency in ordering of the
>>> pg_controldata entries.
>> By testing for '906', you prevent users from using pg_upgrade to go from
>> one catalog version of 9.6 to a later one.  Few people may want to do
>> it, but it should work.
> OK, I see now. I did not consider the case where people would like to
> get upgrade from a dev version of 9.6 to the latest 9.6 version, just
> the upgrade from a previous major version <= 9.5. Thanks for reminding
> that pg_upgrade needs to support that.

Pushed with Bruce's original patch included.


Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to