On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:58:42AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Will a program built with ecpg 8.4 run against a 7.4 server work the
same as the same program built with ecpg 7.4 run against a 7.4 server?
(This implies that the program uses only features present in 7.4.)
No, if the
On Monday 16 February 2009 12:06:55 Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:58:42AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Will a program built with ecpg 8.4 run against a 7.4 server work the
same as the same program built with ecpg 7.4 run against a 7.4 server?
(This implies that the
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:39:32PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Monday 16 February 2009 12:06:55 Michael Meskes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 10:58:42AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Will a program built with ecpg 8.4 run against a 7.4 server work the
same as the same program built
Michael Meskes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:16:05PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
ItemCompatible across major versions?
(i.e. the 8.4 version works with 7.4+ server)
...
ecpgno?
It depends on which kind of compatibility you're looking for. The
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Peter Eisentraut escreveu:
If no such list exists yet, perhaps we can complete the above one, document
it, and pass it on to the packagers.
Are you suggesting that if an user has 7.4 and install 8.3
Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM that having psql alone be cross-version-compatible will be just
about completely uninteresting to packagers. If we could make *all*
the user-facing executables be cross-version, then we'd be getting
somewhere;
Wel, I'm not so sure about the completely uninteresting, but
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
IMHO, we shouldn't advise packagers to do it and instead put some efforts in
the in-place-upgrade project.
First, packagers are already doing (part of) it. Second, I don't see
where this in-place-upgrade is suddenly going to come from. And third,
even if
I've been examining multi-major-version binary packaging again, and I was
wondering whether we have a good overview over which pieces of the
installation are backward compatible (that is, they can be shared between all
major versions) and which are not. For example, psql 8.4 can now presumably
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:16:05PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Item Compatible across major versions?
(i.e. the 8.4 version works with 7.4+ server)
...
ecpg no?
It depends on which kind of compatibility you're looking for. The grammar
accepted will surely be
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
pg_restore yes?
I don't know how far back pg_restore works, but the reason I have not
produced a backport of parallel restore is that the HEAD version works
with dumps and servers at least as far back as 8.2 (and I was careful to
make sure it supported
Peter Eisentraut escreveu:
If no such list exists yet, perhaps we can complete the above one, document
it, and pass it on to the packagers.
Are you suggesting that if an user has 7.4 and install 8.3 then the package
will replace psql-7.4 with psql-8.3? It will confuse users more that help
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Peter Eisentraut escreveu:
If no such list exists yet, perhaps we can complete the above one, document
it, and pass it on to the packagers.
Are you suggesting that if an user has 7.4 and install 8.3 then the package
will replace psql-7.4 with psql-8.3?
Alvaro Herrera escreveu:
Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
Peter Eisentraut escreveu:
If no such list exists yet, perhaps we can complete the above one, document
it, and pass it on to the packagers.
Are you suggesting that if an user has 7.4 and install 8.3 then the package
will replace
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I've been examining multi-major-version binary packaging again, and I was
wondering whether we have a good overview over which pieces of the
installation are backward compatible (that is, they can be shared between all
major versions) and which are
14 matches
Mail list logo
