On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Greg Spiegelberg
<gspiegelberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Greg Spiegelberg's message of mar ago 31 09:04:18 -0400 2010:
>>> Probably questions best asked on hackers but I figure many are represented here.
>>> Will there ever be a release where a dump-restore is not necessary?
>>> Perhaps, at least, minor releases (e.g. 9.0 to 9.1) will not require a
>>> dump-restore?
>>
>> 9.0 to 9.1 is not a minor release. 9.0.0 to 9.0.1 is a minor release,
>> and this doesn't require a dump/reload, but it also doesn't have any new
>> features. 9.0 to 9.1 is just as major as 8.4 to 9.0 is. (The rule is:
>> a change in second digit is major release, a change in first digit is
>> marketing pressure)
>
> Okay, wrong terminology. I meant minor release as in Major.Minor.Maintenance.
But you do understand that in pgsql, it's major.major.minor right?
> All I'm suggesting is lumping those things requiring a dump/restore
> together for major updates.
That's exactly what does happen, if you remember that pgsql is
numbered major.major.minor.
From 8.3 to 8.4, dump restore, 8.4 to 9.0 dump restore or pg_migrate,
and 9.0 to 9.1 will be the same.
Now if you meant to save them for 9.x to 10.x? Not gonna happen.
That could be years.