On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
