[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SL to Ledger-SMB - Is it a good idea and why?
- Subject: Re: SL to Ledger-SMB - Is it a good idea and why?
- From: "Chris Travers" <..hidden..>
- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 18:26:24 -0800
The migration scripts were written for SQL-Ledger 2.6.16 since that is
where we forked from. I would expect that any changes made in 2.6
since then would probably be compatible with the upgrade scripts.
Yes, there are schema differences. As of 1.1, though, they are
confined to data integrity enforcement matters. We made a bigger
change in 1.2 which breaks the normal upgrade routine, but soon we
should be back on track with seemless upgrades.
Hope this helps,
On 3/3/07, David Tangye <..hidden..> wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 16:53 -0800, John Locke wrote:
> You know, I moved it over with pg_dumpall, and edited the dump file a
> bit because it had to share with other Postgres users/dbs. I haven't
> used the built-in SL backup feature for ages--figured I had the files
> and raw database.
Hmm, that's interesting. I am rusty on LSMB-SL data schema differences,
but I thought there were differences. So maybe after creating the SL
schema in your LSMB environment, you then run LSMB migrate script(s) to
make schema changes. Which script(s) to run must depend on which version
of SL you start with.
Can anyone confirm that this is the case?
More thinking: sorry if I am out of date here: but I suppose the only
workable SL to LSMB migration strategy is for users to always apply all
SL database upgrade scripts (sql) first to get them to the latest of SL
at that time, then there only needs to be one LSMB migration script to
apply from that point at that time.
Is this the LSMB migration strategy already?
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
Ledger-smb-users mailing list