Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > >> >> > I have updated the paragraph to be: > >> >> > > >> >> > ? ? Upgrading from PostgreSQL 8.3 has additional restrictions not > >> >> > present > >> >> > ? ? when upgrading from later PostgreSQL releases. ?For example, > >> >> > ? ? pg_upgrade will not work for a migration from 8.3 if a user column > >> >> > ? ? is defined as: > >> >> > > >> >> > Can you suggest other wording? > >> >> > >> >> hmm that seems better thanks, however I just noticed that we don't have > >> >> a "general limitations" section. The way the docs are now done suggests > >> >> that there are not limitations at all (except for the two warnings in > >> >> the migration guide). Is pg_upgrade really up to the point where it can > >> >> fully replace pg_dump & pg_restore independent of the loaded (contrib) > >> >> or even third party modules(like postgis or custom datatypes etc)? > >> > > >> > Yea, that's about right. ?I can add limiations if you want. ?;-) > >> > >> I don't believe this. ?For one thing, I am pretty sure that if there > >> are ABI differences between loadable modules between the old and new > >> cluster, hilarity will ensue. > > > > Well, the point is that our existing code doesn't have any > > incompatibilites that I know of. ?We could certainly add some in 9.1. > > Yes, or third-party vendors could add some for us. We can't guarantee > this in general.
What is your point? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
