Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:21:02 -0500
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Jim Ryan <jim@room118solutions.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning
 system/language isn't known to reader
Message-ID: <20180126172102.GJ20836@momjian.us>
References: <20171218213041.25744.8414@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20180126002618.GA20836@momjian.us>
 <CAOfX1iRaU7-PiA7tkHz5DL_LZMNsZZ5XA-AO6Fe+xLhzbUuQNw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOfX1iRaU7-PiA7tkHz5DL_LZMNsZZ5XA-AO6Fe+xLhzbUuQNw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

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 <bruce@momjian.us> 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&#39;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 &quot;from 9.6.3 to the current major
>     release&quot;
>     > requires pg_upgrade, but not &quot;from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3&quot;.
>     >
>     > 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 -&gt; 10.0.0 and 9.5.1 -&gt; 9.6.3: pg_upgrade should be used
>     > 9.6.2 -&gt; 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  <bruce@momjian.us>        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  <bruce@momjian.us>        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 +