Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Huh? Why would that be? Seems like you've done something in the wrong > >> place if that's an issue. > > > Yeah, it is complicated. I don't really care if autovacuum runs on the > > old cluster (we only move the files while the server is down). We only > > want autovacuum not to mess with the relfrozenxids we set on the new > > cluster while the table file is empty. > > > The other issue is that the old alpha binary will not know about the -b > > flag and hence will not start. > > Well, once again, why are you trying to do that? It's not the source > postmaster that needs this flag.
Well, consider that this also locks out non-super users so I figured it would be good to run the old and new in the same binary upgrade mode. Again, we can do just the new cluster for 9.1. I can also control the behavior based on the catalog version number, which seems the most logical. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
