- Free Demo
How to upgrade 3.2.1 or earlier database to use with 3.3.0
This probably applies to all platforms, but I am currently attempting to run 3.3.0 on Mac OS X Snow Leopard using the database backup from my earlier tests.
I began clean, including reloading from the 3.3.0 download package, which installed Postgre as well as the 3.3.0 Postbooks.
I then used PgAdmin3 to create a new database belonging to "admin" (exists) based on template "Postgre". I then restored from my last backup of the Postbooks database from my previous test (3.2.1 I believe). There were no errors on the restore.
Upon logging in, a message comes up that states I'm using a database aimed at 3.2.1 and although I can carry on, errors may occur.
I attempted to create the new database basing it on the new "empty" as well as the new "QuickStart" and then restoring from my backup, but this results in over 2000 errors and while it does allow me to log in, none of my information is present.
As I'm attempting to learn several programs at once, I may be missing something, although I have seen no mention of how to upgrade the database from a previous version of Postbooks to use in a later one.
What is the method I should use to move forward into version 3.3.0 and maintain use of my previous database?
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 15:38#1
You need to upgrade the
You need to upgrade the database to version 3.3.0 as well. See http://www.xtuple.org/node/2346
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 18:14#2
The post that Ned directs to you does have all of the info. I thought I would add a few more. To upgrade postbooks you need to download the specific upgrade file or files(s) that get you from 3.2.1 to 3.3.0. You use the updater program available for download from sourceforge. I believe the current version of updater is 2.0.0. There is also a link to common errors on the thread Ned highlighted. It is useful when errors are encountered during the upgrades. Be sure to take backups before applying the upgrades. The folks at xtuple asked me to chime in as I am located in Vancouver and have been involved with xtuple for a number of years. I will be on-line for a while so do not hesitate to post if you have a question.
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 19:40#3
3.3.0 data upgrade
Thank you Norm!
I'll get around to trying it again tonight sometime.
PS. Not addressed to Norm, but to the web folks at xtuple: I just logged in WITH a password and receive a message when I try to post THIS message that the spam filter thinks it might be spam and so I need to fill in a CAPTCHA. Using the internet is growing more tiresome to use, I'm very sorry to say. Do we REALLY need a spam filter on password protected submissions to this list?
Mon, 11/23/2009 - 20:32#4
We desperately wish it were not so - but despite the fact that we require registration with a valid email, and (now) the captcha phrase, there are still banks of people out there in internet-land who either create forum topics, or add comments to existing topics or pages, with outright sp*m - for a range of goods and services that would boggle your mind.
The goal seems to be click-fraud: getting links to some site with Google ads on it, even only for a few hours, is apparently worth whatever minimal wages these spawn of Satan are collecting. Of course, if someone happens to click one of the embedded links in a harmless-looking comment about the poster's "business," then the harm is magnified.
This is an entire industry of illicit, parasitical leeches on the online world - and one, it needs to be said, to which the online advertising arms merchants are apparently turning a blind eye. Another example: We were, until recently, a Google keywords advertiser. But recently, we noticed a suspciously large charge on our several-times-a-month bill. Upon closer examination, we learned that there had been thousands upon thousands of clicks on ads for xTuple on a site for mobile device games. (This was, of course, a little outside the realm of the kind of sites we had explicitly targeted for ERP system shoppers).
Upon even closer examination, we determined that all the clicks had come from just one page. So someone had rigged this thing to fire off thousands of clicks, so they could collect whatever pennies (and we would be charged a commensurate amount of dollars) for this 100% totally fraudulent traffic.
Google's response: There's no problem here. System is working as intended.
We're no longer advertising with Google.
I relate this tedious story (sorry) to illustrate a broader point: there are parasites out there on the internet, and those of us who are trying to provide a usable forum for information-gathering, community activity, and yes, legitimate commerce, have a significant daily maintenance burden.
Just watch for the next 12 hours. It's 8:30 PM Eastern time now. I guarantee that by the time our web team is checking the site before breakfast tomorrow, there will be a couple of these click-fraud postings. The captcha keeps out some of them, but not enough.
We'd welcome any additional thoughts people might have on how best to deal with this, and to manage the balance between convenience and overly burdensome rules.