Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 4/24/23 17:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "A bit laborious"? That seems enormously out of proportion to the
>> benefit of putting this test case into back branches. It will have
>> costs for end users too, not only us. As an example, it would
>> unecessarily block some upgrade paths, if the upgraded-to installation
>> is slightly older and lacks the necessary --1.X.1--1.12 script.
> Why would that block the upgrade? Presumably we'd add two upgrade
> scripts in the master, to allow upgrade both from 1.X and 1.X.1.
It would for example block updating from 14.8 or later to 15.2, since
a 15.2 installation would not have the script to update from 1.X.1.
Yeah, people could work around that by only installing the latest
version, but there are plenty of real-world scenarios where you'd be
creating friction, or at least confusion. I do not think that this
test case is worth it.
regards, tom lane
