Re: pg_upgrade
| От | Tomasz Szypowski |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: pg_upgrade |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CACmJi2J2stMNKuBm=sLrjhhJh68AWEoDCnAM5UJ5rj1N=wBKTw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-bugs |
As far as I remember pg_upgrade is from 11.2 rest is from 9.5. This is due to the fact, that the version is secured, only md5, md5 hashed and so on. I compared the code and didn’t see much difference in pg_upgrade core, but give me some days and I will test it using binaries from 11.2
Regards
Thomas
W dniu pon., 18.03.2019 o 23:37 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napisał(a):
Tomasz Szypowski <tomasz.szypowski@gmail.com> writes:
> So what set it to false?
I was hoping you'd tell me ;-). If it's not false in the old cluster,
though, that theory is all wet.
I wonder if you're somehow using the wrong version of pg_upgrade or
pg_dump. There are cross-checks about that in pg_upgrade, but it
looks like they only check the major version number --- if we'd changed
anything about this in a minor release (which I think we did), it might
be possible to get burnt if you were using pg_upgrade or pg_dump from a
prior minor release. What are all the versions involved, exactly?
regards, tom lane
pozdrawiam
Tomek
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: