Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eerqd-0001GP-MG for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:26:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eerqd-0005tG-26 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:26:27 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eerqc-0005t6-Pg for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:26:26 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eerqV-0000Ei-IU for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:26:25 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eerqU-0001Sg-7Y; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:26:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:26:18 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: jim@room118solutions.com, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader Message-ID: <20180126002618.GA20836@momjian.us> References: <20171218213041.25744.8414@wrigleys.postgresql.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171218213041.25744.8414@wrigleys.postgresql.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 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 + --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="version.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 PostgreSQL. It is not required for minor version upgrades, e.g. from ! 9.6.2 to 9.6.3. --- 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 PostgreSQL. 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. --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG--