Installing bacula-server with PostgreSQL 9.2

[Steven Schlansker]

On Apr 10, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Dmitry Morozovsky <marck at rinet.ru> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Steven Schlansker wrote:
> 
>>> The dependency on postgresql90 is "baked into" the compiled package, and
>>> it is not possible to use that package with a different version of
>>> postgresql. Apart from anything else, any binaries are linked against
>>> the specific ABI versions of shlibs provided by the postgresql client
>>> package. 'pkg set -o' is not an answer in this case,
>> 
>> That?s very unfortunate!  I would expect a binary built against libpq 9.0
>> to work fine when linked with libpq 9.3, but can?t say that I know exactly
>> how good PostgreSQL is about binary compatibility.
> 
> The PostgreSQL team is quite straight about it: there's no promises regarding 
> binary compatibility when you're changing important (in PgSQL case, second 
> number) version part; hence, whenever you're drifting from N.M to N.M+1 you're 
> basically forced to to dump/resore or replication.  There were some exceptions, 
> but usually you should be ready to set up new server and then migrate your 
> database one way or another…

Hi Dmitry,

You are totally correct for the binary representation of the *database on disk*.

This is something I know and already had to deal with when we upgraded 9.1 -> 9.2.

However this thread is entirely about a end-user program that *links* against
libpq which is totally different.  And the replies from Heikki and Tom in
this thread:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Details-about-libpq-cross-version-compatibility-td5723830.html

make it sound like it should certainly be source-compatible and almost-certainly
binary compatible.  Which means this sounds like a deficiency in ‘pkg’ itself.

Thanks,
Steven