> "Mark Woodward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not to cause any arguments, but this is sort a standard discussion that
>> gets brought up periodically and I was wondering if there has been any
>> "softening" of the attitudes against an "in place" upgrade, or movement
>> to
>> not having to dump and restore for upgrades.
> Whenever someone actually writes a pg_upgrade, we'll institute a policy
> to restrict changes it can't handle.  But until we have a credible
> upgrade tool it's pointless to make any such restriction.  ("Credible"
> means "able to handle system catalog restructurings", IMHO --- without
> that, you'd not have any improvement over the current rules for minor
> releases.)

IMHO, *before* any such tool *can* be written, a set of rules must be
enacted regulating catalog changes. If there are no rules and no process
by which changes get approved, requiring a "was is" conversion strategy,
then the tools has to change with every major version, which will, of
course, put it at risk of losing support in the long term.

Like I said, I understand the reluctance to do these things, it isn't an
easy thing to do. Designing and planning for the future is, however, the
hallmark of a good engineer.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to