Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [207.172.3.236]) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id UAA23399 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:43:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from darren (207-172-153-66.s3.as7.abr.erols.com [207.172.153.66]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA04585 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:43:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Stupor Genius" To: "Hackers" Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Lots 'o patches Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1998 20:44:23 -0400 Message-ID: <001001bd8dbf$964de840$4299accf@darren> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <199806011424.KAA08421@candle.pha.pa.us> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 > > That is going to be difficult to do. We used to have some SQL scripts > that could make the required database changes, but when system table > structure changes, I can't imagine how we would migrate that without a > dump/reload. I suppose we could keep the data/index files with user data, > run initdb, and move the data files back, but we need the system table > info reloaded into the new system tables. If the tuple header info doesn't change, this doesn't seem that tough. Just do a dump the pg_* tables and reload them. The system tables are "small" compared to the size of user data/indexes, no? Or is there some extremely obvious reason that this is harder than it seems? But then again, what are the odds that changes for a release will only affect system tables so not to require a data dump? Not good I'd say. darrenk