Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0010302151540.777-100000@peter.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Lamar Owen writes: > In the environment of the general purpose OS upgrade, the RPM's > installation scripts cannot fire up a backend, nor can it assume one > is running or is not running, nor can the RPM installation scripts > fathom from the run-time environment whether they are being run from a > command line or from the OS upgrade (except on Linux Mandrake, which > allows such usage). I don't understand why this is so. It seems perfectly possible that some %preremovebeforeupdate starts a postmaster, runs pg_dumpall, saves the file somewhere, then the %postinstallafterupdate runs the inverse operation. Disk space is not a valid objection, you'll never get away without 2x storage. Security is not a problem either. Are you not upgrading in proper dependency order or what? Everybody does dump, remove, install, undump; so can the RPMs. Okay, so it's not as great as a new KDE starting up and asking "may I update your configuration files?", but understand that the storage format is optimized for performance, not easy processing by external tools or something like that. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: