From: Gary Stainburn <gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk>
Organization: Ringways Garages Ltd
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: upgrade from FC9 / PG8.3 to C7 / PG 9.6 - utf8
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 15:30:42 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <201901181429.51278.gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk>
 <201901181508.26233.gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk>
 <8c6bfd45-8aa5-b966-ce29-ac65b7b525b3@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <8c6bfd45-8aa5-b966-ce29-ac65b7b525b3@matrix.gatewaynet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201901181530.42190.gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk>
 
 Content preview:  On Friday 18 January 2019 15:18:45 Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
    > On 18/1/19 5:08 μ.μ., Gary Stainburn wrote: > > If I were to go to 10.x
    on Centos 7, would I be able to install it > > alongside the existing 9.6
    to test it? I have noticed with the 9.6 > > install that it's now using the
    version number as part of the data path. > > 9.6 is not page level compatible
    with e.g. 9.5 whereas 10.6 is with 10.5. > So in the versioning scheme PostreSQL
    community just dropped one dot. > Before (<=9*) it was x.y.z with all x.y.*
    being compatible whereas now > (>=10*) it is x.y with all x.* being compatible.
    By compatible we mean that > no pg_dump/restore or pg_upgrade is needed,
   just recompile and install. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (-50.4 points, 15.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  -50 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
 -1.9 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
  0.1 SCORE_RCPTS            Adding score for each recipient
  0.4 AWL                    AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
  1.0 RING_SAFE              No description available.
X-forward-disable: yes
List-Id: <pgsql-admin.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-admin>
Precedence: bulk

On Friday 18 January 2019 15:18:45 Achilleas Mantzios wrote:
> On 18/1/19 5:08 =CE=BC.=CE=BC., Gary Stainburn wrote:
> > If I were to go to 10.x on Centos 7, would I be able to install it
> > alongside the existing 9.6 to test it? I have noticed with the 9.6
> > install that it's now using the version number as part of the data path.
>
> 9.6 is not page level compatible with e.g. 9.5 whereas 10.6 is with 10.5.
> So in the versioning scheme PostreSQL community just dropped one dot.
> Before (<=3D9*) it was x.y.z with all x.y.* being compatible whereas now
> (>=3D10*) it is x.y with all x.* being compatible. By compatible we mean =
that
> no pg_dump/restore or pg_upgrade is needed, just recompile and install.

I have installed 10.6, configured it and imported the data all without issu=
e.=20
So far, so good.

I have done the import using the pg_dumpall done on the 8.3 system. From th=
e=20
comments earlier, would I be better off doing a pg_dumpall of the 8.3 syste=
m=20
using the binarys from the 10.6 system?