We have a requirement to downgrade from PostgreSQL 9.5.4 to 9.5.2

It is binary compatible, so yes. But trust me, there is problem with the new version.

On 20 September 2016 06:00:59 CEST, KGA Official <kga.official@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

We are currently running at 9.5.2 and plan to upgrade to 9.5.4, but our
change requirement needs to plan for a downgrade with data
preservation,
before upgrade is authorized.

Thus, I am asking this: Is it safe to downgrade from 9.5.4 to 9.5.2 by
simply replacing the binaries? We will keep the data folder same.

Thx!

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

On 09/19/2016 09:43 PM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:

It is binary compatible, so yes. But trust me, there is problem with the
new version.

Just to be clear did you mean:

"But trust me, there is problem with the new version."

Or

But trust me, there is no problem with the new version.

On 20 September 2016 06:00:59 CEST, KGA Official
<kga.official@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

We are currently running at 9.5.2 and plan to upgrade to 9.5.4, but
our change requirement needs to plan for a downgrade with data
preservation, before upgrade is authorized.

Thus, I am asking this: Is it safe to downgrade from 9.5.4 to 9.5.2
by simply replacing the binaries? We will keep the data folder same.

Thx!

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
gesendet.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

We are currently running at 9.5.2 and plan to upgrade to 9.5.4, but our
change requirement needs to plan for a downgrade with data preservation,
before upgrade is authorized.

Thus, I am asking this: Is it safe to downgrade from 9.5.4 to 9.5.2 by
simply replacing the binaries? We will keep the data folder same.

Technically, that should not be a problem. The only thing to foresee would
be that, if you are upgrading to fix any BUGs or CVEs, then downgrading
would revert the fixes.
Just curious to know - when you say downgrade, do you mean to say there has
to be a back-out plan in place if the upgrade fails ? or you are really
going to downgrade again ?

Regards,
Venkata B N

Fujitsu Australia

Hi Andreas, Adrian and Venkata,

Regarding "are you really going to downgrade again"?
The upgraded postgres will be bundled along with product code changes and
other products. So, if someone finds product issues, they will roll back
everything together.
So, essentially, yes. One requirement of the roll out is that it be
possible to roll-back.

It is understood that the Bugs/CVEs will be reverted by the downgrade. In
any-case, the downgrade will be temporary till the issue is resolved and
the bundle upgraded again.

Andreas,

But trust me, there is problem with the new version.

Do you see any major defects with the new version?

Thx,
Regards
Akshay

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:21 PM, KGA Official <kga.official@gmail.com> wrote:

Regarding "are you really going to downgrade again"?
The upgraded postgres will be bundled along with product code changes and
other products. So, if someone finds product issues, they will roll back
everything together.
So, essentially, yes. One requirement of the roll out is that it be possible
to roll-back.

Roll-out can be a complicated requirement knowing that sometimes minor
releases can introduce new GUC parameters and those can generate WAL
records. Though it is a rare fact, it is not impossible, and things
are kept compatible as much as possible. Personally I find deploying a
backup of PGDATA instead of reusing an existing PGDATA with older
binaries after it has run with newer binaries a more iron-solid
approach, and I've learnt to be careful with such things..
--
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general