1 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 11/10/2014 06:04 AM, covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
4 |
> > Hi. I have a puzzle regarding upgrading postgresql. In my recent world |
5 |
> > update I went from 9.4_beta2 to beta3, but when I tried to start the |
6 |
> > server, it complained that the databases were written with a different |
7 |
> > "catalog version" -- whatever that is, and the pg_upgrade tool requires |
8 |
> > both old and new binaries to actually upgrade the database. So as a |
9 |
> > temporary measure, I went back to beta2 and things worked again. So |
10 |
> > what the heck are you supposed to do here, I like pg, but this is very |
11 |
> > strange to me. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Thanks in advance for any suggestions. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> |
16 |
> pg_upgrade has always been a PITA for me. There's an easier way that |
17 |
> always works: run pg_dumpall, upgrade postgres, and then restore the |
18 |
> dump file. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> If your databases are small enough, it's much less stressful, and it |
21 |
> works for major version bumps as well. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> If you're worried about overwriting your data, you could always back up |
24 |
> the beta2 binary files, and then create empty databases under beta3 |
25 |
> before restoring. |
26 |
|
27 |
Thanks, maybe I will do that next time. |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
31 |
How do |
32 |
you spend it? |
33 |
|
34 |
John Covici |
35 |
covici@××××××××××.com |