Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ef84y-0000VJ-Ca for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:46:20 +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 1ef84x-00047N-Re for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:46:19 +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 1ef7Rf-0001P5-0X for pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:05:43 +0000 Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com ([209.85.128.193]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1ef7Rb-0004hd-E0 for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:05:41 +0000 Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id v15so1095440wrb.8 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:05:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=room118solutions.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Lak/0tO3zAQB7qqIchf1PJdRmjEqCle4pFcAkCM+uSQ=; b=D/uMZup1qYxH6KPmqSL6Ptp5ydghRx9t7Qmi2w99y14O9mokWCEN8X6NfEwk9LC15D ITxx2VXDhkdHI6X+pGsdEnZK/0tU01Q/4GUPMbRTR7MeBd2mXClMoFuMsDbo5+NOodbL MR4dg7v2YWY8zOsvn/vG6tm8XqIfDcqEsVHKY= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Lak/0tO3zAQB7qqIchf1PJdRmjEqCle4pFcAkCM+uSQ=; b=X7G5OoZaeY5nfhMexKGaTeNkBOf16DPcY0Vl8w8PSj6rBnd8Z/4IoEK2qla4NQKqOR iosa3ICjkp/MIvOjtBZLusmnHLexc9calRqBYd2kylY3LxdO5Daa2fVLwFmekuvDE0c3 j4K05jy63QrZa8f2EQmfsyb16up1YAyh3Lv6JMRtElUvt3RLNb86MboD7H+rzzNK04Zk rmFl97YOcWfsat4LuJWfngS4pdxvxI1ox9ulYCRLw+NiEQ+F/NZQIJSbOt9p6EiYKmel pZfqF5Jdst7xX9ZpqJX5hL7f/EajQ7JF2RpTUonLsRCZOnooHf1ffJrPIXkyWvHRrF6T s8Sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytf2H7DdGiVTrWlUsRanKrOfdU2hwKPgzBI97aj7mO3yz+cinD8j 74fAx0qGMaESpgsEgGeKEa08hD+9/zMB8qv662WuOLFV X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225pxv+comuLrihvq7jebWWQ5nmZe0PY2sruf/yd3b2R2uN0xQXZ/WEeooImqlv7hxQmKJoi8FYDiDjHUMpaMV8= X-Received: by 10.223.175.213 with SMTP id y21mr7797955wrd.135.1516986277462; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:04:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.134.57 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:04:17 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [108.30.178.16] In-Reply-To: <20180126002618.GA20836@momjian.us> References: <20171218213041.25744.8414@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <20180126002618.GA20836@momjian.us> From: Jim Ryan Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:04:17 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: pg_upgrade docs are confusing if PostgreSQL's versioning system/language isn't known to reader To: Bruce Momjian Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403043890e43299f50563b0e4b6" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --f403043890e43299f50563b0e4b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 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 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 + > --f403043890e43299f50563b0e4b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey Bruce,

Thanks for working on this, = but wouldn't pg_upgrade be needed from 10.1 to 10.2?=C2=A0 Aren't t= hose 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.=C2=A0 I think most user= s would assume from 9.x to 10.x is a major version change.=C2=A0 The ambigu= ity is in 9.x to 9.y.=C2=A0=C2=A0

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 (wh= ere 9.5 and
> 9.6 are considered major versions) reads the documentation, it is uncl= ear 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 m= ajor release&quot;
> requires pg_upgrade, but not &quot;from 9.6.2 to 9.6.3&quot;.<= br> >
> The problem with that language is that the current release of PostgreS= QL is
> 10.=C2=A0 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 consid= ered a
> major release.

How is this attached patch?

--
=C2=A0 Bruce Momjian=C2=A0 <bruce@mo= mjian.us>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://momjian.us
=C2=A0 EnterpriseDB=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I.=C2=A0 As I am, so you will be. +
+=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 Ancient Roman grave inscription +

--f403043890e43299f50563b0e4b6--