Re: -Wformat-zero-length
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-08-08T22:42:27Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mi ago 08 17:15:38 -0400 2012: >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 04:23:04PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I think this is one good idea: >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/29806.1340655654@sss.pgh.pa.us >> If we currently require 14 steps to use pg_upgrade, how would that >> reduce this number? What failures does it fix? > The suggestion by Tom reduces the list by two steps because it doesn't > need to adjust pg_hba.conf or put it back in the original way > afterwards. Even more to the point, it flat-out eliminates failure modes associated with somebody connecting to either the old or the new cluster while pg_upgrade is working. Schemes that involve temporarily hacking pg_hba.conf can't provide any iron-clad guarantee, because if pg_upgrade can connect to a postmaster, so can somebody else. The point I think Robert was trying to make is that we need to cut down not only the complexity of running pg_upgrade, but the number of failure modes. At least that's how I'd define improvement here. regards, tom lane