Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4125636E25 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:36:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52205-02 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:35:56 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.238]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB11B63738D for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:19:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so1051050rvb.43 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:19:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HjwzFbeOJynZfi1UUWVIJ5TebMJhGUC18fpB7KkYUzc=; b=HFFIS6iZAK3hl0ohy3MZj8dqdFpHN8VkMbIptiRqHocY8juWrXOrcZZjVKdUBCgm3M y13PnnfIJO0NE6TTM4UKwu3zjvHLat4lPWWn5QrN9kOGeawI4r/zkOiEMvUksgqcvHM4 p4+mDwnD0Ju98fZgJKffokUbqmE+yJrPL2H3U= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=I4UbnCb4uNauGgLNepfNGLgjtZUVM1rHbM18feut3gcicTB5Y01aiCujPi/c0AyIjl M2MSvPuaLHZXoy8wXxwJusa1ygF/tErhPaPc0TtcbF3XEMVT2cc30+Sf4PqB9T6okGzx cUDHoinUcrU0M5VHkPbPTciLtqHXnk8wrVEiw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.107.13 with SMTP id j13mr1339831rvm.251.1237551590775; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:19:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4bb7c9f80903170736k3416b743me44c42ca847a3d89@mail.gmail.com> References: <4bb7c9f80903170736k3416b743me44c42ca847a3d89@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:49:50 +0530 Message-ID: <1495ee400903200519t7da4938fs44c45e46cfca1dea@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: vacuum From: itishree sukla To: Ygor Degani Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd13a2af59d8104658beece X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200903/202 X-Sequence-Number: 31702 --000e0cd13a2af59d8104658beece Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ygor, There is no problem with this .You can do the vacuum. Regards, Itishree On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ygor Degani wrote: > People, > > I have three databases in different machines: a pgsql server version 8.2.4, > a pgsql server version 8.1.4 and another pgsql client version 8.3.5. > Is there a problem to make vacuum with client newer than server? For > example: To use vacuumdb of client version 8.3.5 to make vacuum in server > 8.2.4 or in server 8.1.4. > > Regards, > > -- > Ygor Degani > --000e0cd13a2af59d8104658beece Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ygor,

There is no problem with this .You can do the vacuum.

Regards,
Itishree

On Tue, Mar 17= , 2009 at 8:06 PM, Ygor Degani <ygordegani@gmail.com> wrote:
People,

I = have three databases in different machines: a pgsql server version 8.2.4, a= pgsql server version 8.1.4 and another pgsql client version 8.3.5.
Is there a problem to make vacuum with client newer than server? For exampl= e: To use vacuumdb of client version 8.3.5 to make vacuum in server 8.2.4 o= r in server 8.1.4.

Regards,

--
Ygor Degan= i

--000e0cd13a2af59d8104658beece--