Postgresql update

Moritz Heiber moe at
Sat Feb 5 16:47:02 UTC 2005

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 21:50:11 -0700
"Richard Pyne" <rpyne at> wrote:

> There is a desparate need to at least warn that an update is 
> going to break a running system. Something even as simple as 
> listing version numbers when listing what modules are being 
> updated on a 'lunar update' would go a long way toward making 
> updates less nerve racking.

First of all .. you're right. They way major upgrades are handled could
be improved. However, I'd generally advise to anyone, who's running a
system with critical system component, to either put the corresponding
modules on hold or update them manually to be able to react to
the problems that may arise.

I know, this could be painful in some situations .. especially if you
need to update a lot of critical parts .. but it's going to save you
from trouble that might occur when using 'lunar update'.

Thanks for your feedback though .. I'll have a look at the postgresql



PS: That version number though is quite interesting actually ..
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the Lunar mailing list