Run your cluster on Debian. Make a backup. Run pg_upgradecluster. In a week, throw away the backup.
(You should be checking for regressions and behavior changes in your app, too, but you always need to do that. Have a QA database.)
Run your cluster on Debian. Make a backup. Run pg_upgradecluster. In a week, throw away the backup.
(You should be checking for regressions and behavior changes in your app, too, but you always need to do that. Have a QA database.)
I am talking from an end user of an application point of view.
I have _one_ database, not a cluster. I back it up every day anyway.
You're telling me I have to specifically use Debian, and have a cluster, to get a good experience out of Postgres?
Doesn't sound very boring to me.
First, important point: every Postgres DB is in a cluster.
Second, important point: yes, you should use Debian because Debian has consistently provided the upgrade-in-place experience that PG has lacked until.... just now, actually.
Third point that you didn't ask about: you should learn a little about PG tuning, because on day 1, the config is tuned appropriately for your Sun Ultra 5 workstation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_5/10
(I am slightly exaggerating, but you should investigate anyway.)
Okay, I was not familiar with the Postgres specific terminology.
Just for context, I run Postgres on an OpenBSD host (will probably be FreeBSD in the near future) to back an instance of davical which is a caldav server used by a total of two people.
I will keep tuning in mind if I ever actually use Postgres for anything significant but for now it seems like it would probably be wasted effort.
While I'd agree that Debian is boring, it still seems to me that Postgres isn't, even with this in place upgrade tooling. I still have to remember a specific upgrade command special to Postgres.
Try reading what postgres calls a "cluster" (of databases, not of servers): https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/creating-cluster.htm...