public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 10+ messages / 4 participants [nested] [flat]
* pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader @ 2017-12-18 21:30 PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: PG Doc comments form @ 2017-12-18 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-docs; +Cc: [email protected] The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/pgupgrade.html Description: If a reader who is unfamiliar with PostgreSQL's versioning (where 9.5 and 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is unclear if they need to use pg_upgrade to migrate from 9.5 to 9.6, for example. The documentation says upgrading "from 9.6.3 to the current major release" requires pg_upgrade, but not "from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3". The problem with that language is that the current release of PostgreSQL is 10. So is pg_upgrade required to upgrade from 9.6.3 to current (10) because 9 and 10 are major versions or because 9.6 and 10.0 are major versions? (the latter). It would be clearer if the documentation covered all three cases: 9.6.3 -> 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used 9.6.2 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade not needed Or if the documentation simply noted that the second decimal is considered a major release. Thanks for PostgreSQL! Jim ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2018-01-26 00:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [email protected]; pgsql-docs On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/pgupgrade.html > Description: > > If a reader who is unfamiliar with PostgreSQL's versioning (where 9.5 and > 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is unclear if > they need to use pg_upgrade to migrate from 9.5 to 9.6, for example. > > The documentation says upgrading "from 9.6.3 to the current major release" > requires pg_upgrade, but not "from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3". > > The problem with that language is that the current release of PostgreSQL is > 10. So is pg_upgrade required to upgrade from 9.6.3 to current (10) because > 9 and 10 are major versions or because 9.6 and 10.0 are major versions? (the > latter). > > It would be clearer if the documentation covered all three cases: > 9.6.3 -> 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used > 9.6.2 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade not needed > > Or if the documentation simply noted that the second decimal is considered a > major release. How is this attached patch? -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + Attachments: [text/x-diff] version.diff (848B, 2-version.diff) download | inline diff: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml new file mode 100644 index 055eac3..ed34a64 *** a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml *************** *** 40,46 **** major version without the data dump/reload typically required for major version upgrades, e.g. from 9.6.3 to the current major release of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. It is not required for minor version upgrades, e.g. from ! 9.6.2 to 9.6.3. </para> <para> --- 40,46 ---- major version without the data dump/reload typically required for major version upgrades, e.g. from 9.6.3 to the current major release of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. It is not required for minor version upgrades, e.g. from ! 9.6.2 to 9.6.3 or from 10.1 to 10.2. </para> <para> ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:21 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 18:35 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jim Ryan @ 2018-01-26 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs Hey Bruce, Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 to 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I misunderstanding? The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 to 9.2 is considered a major version change or not. I think most users would assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is in 9.x to 9.y. Thanks, Jim On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/pgupgrade.html > > Description: > > > > If a reader who is unfamiliar with PostgreSQL's versioning (where > 9.5 and > > 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is > unclear if > > they need to use pg_upgrade to migrate from 9.5 to 9.6, for example. > > > > The documentation says upgrading "from 9.6.3 to the current major > release" > > requires pg_upgrade, but not "from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3". > > > > The problem with that language is that the current release of PostgreSQL > is > > 10. So is pg_upgrade required to upgrade from 9.6.3 to current (10) > because > > 9 and 10 are major versions or because 9.6 and 10.0 are major versions? > (the > > latter). > > > > It would be clearer if the documentation covered all three cases: > > 9.6.3 -> 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used > > 9.6.2 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade not needed > > > > Or if the documentation simply noted that the second decimal is > considered a > > major release. > > How is this attached patch? > > -- > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-26 17:21 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2018-01-26 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Ryan <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:04:17PM -0500, Jim Ryan wrote: > Hey Bruce, > > Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 to > 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I misunderstanding? Uh, it is confusing. We switched in PG 10 from changing the _third_ number for a minor release to changing the second number. The next major release of Postgres will be PG 11. > The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 to 9.2 is > considered a major version change or not. I think most users would assume from > 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is in 9.x to 9.y. Does the patch make sense now? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks, > Jim > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/pgupgrade.html > > Description: > > > > If a reader who is unfamiliar with PostgreSQL's versioning (where 9.5 > and > > 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is unclear > if > > they need to use pg_upgrade to migrate from 9.5 to 9.6, for example. > > > > The documentation says upgrading "from 9.6.3 to the current major > release" > > requires pg_upgrade, but not "from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3". > > > > The problem with that language is that the current release of PostgreSQL > is > > 10. So is pg_upgrade required to upgrade from 9.6.3 to current (10) > because > > 9 and 10 are major versions or because 9.6 and 10.0 are major versions? > (the > > latter). > > > > It would be clearer if the documentation covered all three cases: > > 9.6.3 -> 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used > > 9.6.2 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade not needed > > > > Or if the documentation simply noted that the second decimal is > considered a > > major release. > > How is this attached patch? > > -- > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > > -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:21 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-26 17:26 ` Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Jim Ryan @ 2018-01-26 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-docs Ah! Thank you. That makes more sense. I think this could still be confusing for users who did not know about this change and are on 9.x, because the docs now seemingly imply that they would not need to use pg_upgrade when moving from 9.x to 9.y, when they actually do. Is explaining the recent versioning change outside the scope of these docs? If so, then perhaps a link to the versioning policy would work? Jim On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:04:17PM -0500, Jim Ryan wrote: > > Hey Bruce, > > > > Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 > to > > 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I misunderstanding? > > Uh, it is confusing. We switched in PG 10 from changing the _third_ > number for a minor release to changing the second number. The next > major release of Postgres will be PG 11. > > > The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 to > 9.2 is > > considered a major version change or not. I think most users would > assume from > > 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is in 9.x to 9.y. > > Does the patch make sense now? > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------------- > > > > > Thanks, > > Jim > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 09:30:41PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote: > > > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > > > > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/pgupgrade.html > > > Description: > > > > > > If a reader who is unfamiliar with PostgreSQL's versioning > (where 9.5 > > and > > > 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is > unclear > > if > > > they need to use pg_upgrade to migrate from 9.5 to 9.6, for > example. > > > > > > The documentation says upgrading "from 9.6.3 to the current > major > > release" > > > requires pg_upgrade, but not "from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3". > > > > > > The problem with that language is that the current release of > PostgreSQL > > is > > > 10. So is pg_upgrade required to upgrade from 9.6.3 to current > (10) > > because > > > 9 and 10 are major versions or because 9.6 and 10.0 are major > versions? > > (the > > > latter). > > > > > > It would be clearer if the documentation covered all three cases: > > > 9.6.3 -> 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used > > > 9.6.2 -> 9.6.3: pg_upgrade not needed > > > > > > Or if the documentation simply noted that the second decimal is > > considered a > > > major release. > > > > How is this attached patch? > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us > > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > > > > > > -- > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-26 18:35 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-27 15:05 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2018-01-26 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Ryan <[email protected]>; +Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs On Friday, January 26, 2018, Jim Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Bruce, > > Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 to > 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I misunderstanding? > > The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 to 9.2 > is considered a major version change or not. I think most users would > assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is in 9.x > to 9.y. > > Which is why we changed ;) Starting with 10 the one and only value after the decimal is a minor version bug fix release. The next major version will be 11. Of versions beginning with 9 there were 7 major versions - 9.0 to 9.6; the third position value denoted the minor bug fix release. pg-upgrade is only required for upgrading between major versions. On our homeoage we list every major release that is currently supported. David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 18:35 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader David G. Johnston <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-27 15:05 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-30 01:16 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-30 02:31 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2018-01-27 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; +Cc: Jim Ryan <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:35:09AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Friday, January 26, 2018, Jim Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Bruce, > > Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 to > 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I misunderstanding? > > The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 to 9.2 > is considered a major version change or not. I think most users would > assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is in 9.x > to 9.y. > > > > Which is why we changed ;) > > Starting with 10 the one and only value after the decimal is a minor version > bug fix release. The next major version will be 11. > > Of versions beginning with 9 there were 7 major versions - 9.0 to 9.6; the > third position value denoted the minor bug fix release. > > pg-upgrade is only required for upgrading between major versions. > > On our homeoage we list every major release that is currently supported. I decided I needed to be more explicit about the major version numbers so I have added major and minor examples for the 9.6.x series and 10.x series releases. Patch attached. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + Attachments: [text/x-diff] version.diff (1.3K, 2-version.diff) download | inline diff: diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml new file mode 100644 index 055eac3..cf4550b *** a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml *************** *** 38,46 **** <application>pg_upgrade</application> (formerly called <application>pg_migrator</application>) allows data stored in <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> data files to be upgraded to a later <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> major version without the data dump/reload typically required for ! major version upgrades, e.g. from 9.6.3 to the current major release ! of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. It is not required for minor version upgrades, e.g. from ! 9.6.2 to 9.6.3. </para> <para> --- 38,46 ---- <application>pg_upgrade</application> (formerly called <application>pg_migrator</application>) allows data stored in <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> data files to be upgraded to a later <productname>PostgreSQL</productname> major version without the data dump/reload typically required for ! major version upgrades, e.g. from 9.5.8 to 9.6.4 or from 10.7 to 11.2. ! It is not required for minor version upgrades, e.g. from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3 ! or from 10.1 to 10.2. </para> <para> ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 18:35 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-27 15:05 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-30 01:16 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: David G. Johnston @ 2018-01-30 01:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: Jim Ryan <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 8:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > I decided I needed to be more explicit about the major version numbers > so I have added major and minor examples for the 9.6.x series and 10.x > series releases. Patch attached. > > Thanks! +1 David J. ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 18:35 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-27 15:05 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-30 02:31 ` Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-31 22:10 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Jim Ryan @ 2018-01-30 02:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; +Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs This looks great. Thanks for working on it. Jim On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:35:09AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Friday, January 26, 2018, Jim Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Bruce, > > > > Thanks for working on this, but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from > 10.1 to > > 10.2? Aren't those considered major versions, or am I > misunderstanding? > > > > The source of my (and potentially others) confusion is if from 9.1 > to 9.2 > > is considered a major version change or not. I think most users > would > > assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change. The ambiguity is > in 9.x > > to 9.y. > > > > > > > > Which is why we changed ;) > > > > Starting with 10 the one and only value after the decimal is a minor > version > > bug fix release. The next major version will be 11. > > > > Of versions beginning with 9 there were 7 major versions - 9.0 to 9.6; > the > > third position value denoted the minor bug fix release. > > > > pg-upgrade is only required for upgrading between major versions. > > > > On our homeoage we list every major release that is currently supported. > > I decided I needed to be more explicit about the major version numbers > so I have added major and minor examples for the 9.6.x series and 10.x > series releases. Patch attached. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + > + Ancient Roman grave inscription + > ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 18:35 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-27 15:05 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-30 02:31 ` Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Jim Ryan <[email protected]> @ 2018-01-31 22:10 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Bruce Momjian @ 2018-01-31 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jim Ryan <[email protected]>; +Cc: David G. Johnston <[email protected]>; pgsql-docs On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 09:31:46PM -0500, Jim Ryan wrote: > This looks great. Thanks for working on it. Done. -- Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-31 22:10 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-12-18 21:30 pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader PG Doc comments form <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 00:26 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:04 ` Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:21 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 17:26 ` Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-26 18:35 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-27 15:05 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> 2018-01-30 01:16 ` David G. Johnston <[email protected]> 2018-01-30 02:31 ` Jim Ryan <[email protected]> 2018-01-31 22:10 ` Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox