mark wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> So my configuration manager and I sat down to get pg 9.0 into our
> build/code repo today and hit some oddities and was wondering if I was
> just doing it wrong on my end or if there might be an issue with the
> srpm download for RHEL 5 x86_64.
>
>
>
>
>
> I downloaded the srpm and used that to make a rpm for our own internal
> use, the odd thing was a lot of the pathing from the spec file seemed
> to use directory paths that was, I thought, only used in beta roll outs.
>
>
>
>
>
> e.g. a lot of the pathing was /usr/pgsql-9.0/ (when I thought final
> releases were always without the version number in the dir name)
>
>
>
>
>
> can someone who knows what they are doing just take a quick look and
> see if I am wrong or if maybe something was missed when 9.0 went final?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
> ..: Mark
>
No, I installed the final RPM packages from the official Yum repository
for CentOS and RH EL5 and they do contain separate binary path. The
reason is the pg_upgrade utility which needs the path to old binaries
and the path to new binaries. I was able to do an upgrade without losing
the data.
--
Mladen Gogala
Sr. Oracle DBA
1500 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 329-5251
http://www.vmsinfo.com
The Leader in Integrated Media Intelligence Solutions