On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:32PM +0100, Christian Hammers wrote: > Hello > > Can you remember where did you read that? There is no mention of GIST on > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/upgrading.html and a database > which uses GIST indexes *seems* to work just finde after upgrading with > pg_upgrade. Hash, Gin, and GiST index binary format had changes from 8.3->8.4. Running pg_upgrade or pg_upgrade --check will warn about any indexes that need rebuilding. If pg_upgrade didn't report any problems, you are fine. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > bye, > > -christian- > > > Am Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:02:13 -0700 > schrieb Lonni J Friedman <netllama@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > pg_upgrade has worked fine for several releases. I believe that the > > only time when pg_upgrade isn't a viable option is for some types of > > GIST indices. > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Nikolas Everett <nik9000@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > I was just looking at > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/release-9-2.html and it > > > mentioned that a dump/reload cycle was required to upgrade from a > > > previous release. I just got done telling some of my coworkers > > > that PG had been bitten by this enough times that they were done > > > with it. Am I wrong? Is this normal? > > > > > > I see that pg_upgrade is an option. Having never used how long > > > should I expect pg_upgrade to take? Obviously we'll measure it in > > > our environment, but it'd be nice to have a ballpark figure. > > > > > > Nik > > > > > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
