> Le 23 avr. 2017 à 10:56, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> a écrit : > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Fabrice Bacchella > <fabrice.bacche...@orange.fr> wrote: >> >>> Le 23 avr. 2017 à 07:59, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> a écrit : >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> And it was not in the release notes, it's not funny to get this warning >>>>> after starting the upgrade >>> >>> This isn't a new test, see above bug. >>> >>> Are you sure it's the first time you see it? Perhaps you upgraded your pg >>> server only after the last upgrade of the engine? >>> >> >> That's might true about the test, but not the autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor >> and others. >> >> And any way, about the test, having a different version of pg library and pg >> server is quite common when you have a centralized pg. You might plan an >> upgrade any time and don't expect every client to complain about a minor >> release, that's quite unexpected. > > Very well, so I detailed above a suggestion about what you can do. > > Either make backup (and therefore rollback) optional, or make the test > more delicate. Neither seems trivial to me in terms of risk (although > they might be quite simple in the amount of code to change). > >> >> The bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331168 is about major >> version, I got complain from ovirt about patch level. That's not the same >> thing. > > I didn't check PG's official terminology. The bug was about 9.2 > against 9.5. In general, "9" is the major version, and the bug still > applied. It might be that they consider "9.2" to be the major version, > and "9.5" a different major version.
From the very bug description: > I'm testing migration from 3.6 EL6 with remote DBs (PG 8.x) to 4.0 EL7 while > still using remote DBs (which I restored from backup). > Problem is 4.0 supports PG 9.x but I was still original PG 8.x. engine-setup > from 4.0 should know it needs PG 9.x and should check PG version even for > remote DBs. In the extract from the man page, the main problems are also about major versions. You test 9.2 against 9.5. What I have failling is 9.4.8 against 9.4.11. That is very different from all the case described. > >> And the solution that ovirt propose is to have the server lying about >> version to all of it's client. > > Where did you see this? Please set: autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor = 0.01 autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.075 autovacuum_max_workers = 6 server_version = 9.4.8 Are in the log from the upgrade command. > > The text you copied is: "Please use a Postgresql server of version '9.4.8'" > >> What can I do if every client I use require such a thing ? > > You mean: > 1. I want a single server with some version X > 2. I want different clients with different versions X1, X2, ... > 3. More than one of these clients requires the server to be the same > version as the client > ? > > I'd say - upgrade all such clients to the version of the server, or > make these clients not require that :-) Yes make these clients not require that. Ovirt is one of those complaining client. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users