# Upgrade 8.1 → 8.3 upgrade: Are SQL Bridge or Industrial Historian Solution Suite required? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [January 14, 2026, 3:48pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/upgrade-8-1-8-3-upgrade-are-sql-bridge-or-industrial-historian-solution-suite-required/113287 "2026-01-14T15:48:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![JoseJardelLuciano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/35a633/32.png) [@JoseJardelLuciano](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/JoseJardelLuciano)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2026, 3:48pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/upgrade-8-1-8-3-upgrade-are-sql-bridge-or-industrial-historian-solution-suite-required/113287/1 "2026-01-14T15:48:16Z")
We have a project currently in production running **Ignition 8.1.43** , and we are planning to start a new phase of the project next month in a new customer. The customer has requested **API integrations** , and from our evaluation, **Ignition 8.3** seems more appropriate for this use case. Please correct me if this assumption is not accurate. A new team member mentioned that upgrading to 8.3 would require the **SQL Bridge Module** and the **Industrial Historian Solution Suite** , even though: - Our current 8.1.43 project does **not** use SQL Bridge - We already use **Tag History** - We already have **Microsoft SQL Server** connections - We do not have either of these modules installed today Given this context, I would like to clarify: 1. Are **SQL Bridge** or **Industrial Historian Solution Suite** required to upgrade from **Ignition 8.1 to 8.3**? 2. Are there any scenarios where these modules are mandatory for API integrations? 3. Is **Tag Historian + database connections + scripting** sufficient for this architecture in 8.3, as it is in 8.1? Any guidance or confirmation from the community would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. ---
**Author:** ![tgarrison](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/tgarrison/32/80965_2.png) [@tgarrison](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/tgarrison)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2026, 3:51pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/upgrade-8-1-8-3-upgrade-are-sql-bridge-or-industrial-historian-solution-suite-required/113287/2 "2026-01-14T15:51:30Z")
You shouldn't need anything different for modules than what you currently have. SQL bridge is primarily for transaction groups. NOT for connections to SQL servers. No change there. You've got a historian module of some sort already. The Suite just adds more modules that if you don't need, you don't need. ---
**Author:** ![paul-griffith](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/paul-griffith/32/37249_2.png) [@paul-griffith](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/paul-griffith)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2026, 5:28pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/upgrade-8-1-8-3-upgrade-are-sql-bridge-or-industrial-historian-solution-suite-required/113287/3 "2026-01-14T17:28:07Z")
> [@JoseJardelLuciano](#): > > The customer has requested **API integrations** This (not as an indictment on you, just as a general statement) means **literally nothing**. It's underspecified; "API integrations" could mean virtually anything. If this means **consuming** a **REST** API, then the base Ignition platform can do that out of the box via `system.net.httpClient`. If this means **providing** a REST API that exposes system state and configuration C/R/U/D, then yes, 8.3 is appropriate. If this means providing a _custom_ REST API, then you can use the WebDev module (purchased directly or as part of a solution suite) in 8.1 or 8.3. But "API" is a term so broad it's meaningless. It also includes OPC UA, Modbus, Bacnet, JDBC, SECS/GEM, etc, etc, etc. One program putting a CSV file in a certain location and another program reading from it is an API. ---
**Author:** ![JoseJardelLuciano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/35a633/32.png) [@JoseJardelLuciano](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/JoseJardelLuciano)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2026, 7:46pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/upgrade-8-1-8-3-upgrade-are-sql-bridge-or-industrial-historian-solution-suite-required/113287/4 "2026-01-14T19:46:13Z")
> [@paul-griffith](#): > > If this means **providing** a REST API that exposes system state and configuration C/R/U/D, then yes, 8.3 is appropriate. That's exactly the scenario we need. ---
**Author:** ![JoseJardelLuciano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/35a633/32.png) [@JoseJardelLuciano](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/JoseJardelLuciano)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2026, 1:20pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/upgrade-8-1-8-3-upgrade-are-sql-bridge-or-industrial-historian-solution-suite-required/113287/5 "2026-01-21T13:20:53Z")
An update: The upgrade will be to the project itself, but the license will be a new one, not an upgrade of the existing license.