On 25/09/2010, at 1:11 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 24/09/2010 8:40 PM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
>> On 24/09/2010 13:21, kongsgar@stud.ntnu.no wrote:
>>>> What version of PG was it?
>>> The "PG_VERSION" file = 8.3
>>
>> OK, well at least it's not an ancient version that's not available
>> any
>> more. :-)
>>
>> As Craig said, the best thing is to get hold of a copy of 8.3 that
>> matches the architecture of the old server machine
>
> Or compile one, if necessary. You should *certainly* compile one in
> preference to trying to hack outdated packages onto your new system
> by force, as some people seem to do. *BAD* *IDEA*, do not try it.
> Just by way of warning.
>
> If you do compile it, specify a non-default --prefix that's a unique
> new subtree, so you can just "rm -rf" it when you're done with it.
> Think --prefix=/opt/pgsql8.3 . If you install it directly into /usr/
> local you'll have a crufty old libpq and headers hanging around later.
I'd like to just add a few words of encouragement here. Postgresql's
build system is absolutely marvellous in that it can produce a totally
self-contained installation under --prefix that can be copied across
compatible systems etc. You even can build several variants and
install them at different prefixes if unsure which is going to match
the database. So your only worry is to make sure you are playing
around with a copy of the database copy, not with the master copy
itself. :-)
A virtual machine can be useful for experiments, as usual, but a
Postgresql installation to a custom prefix will not litter the base
system so it's pretty safe to try it out on a live machine of suitable
architecture rather than in a "sandbox", which can save some time.
Yar