Horton

Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-10-28T14:09:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas wrote:
> action.  I understand that failing is probably less code, but IMHO one
> of the biggest problems with pg_upgrade is that it's too fragile:
> there are too many seemingly innocent things that can make it croak
> (which isn't good, when you consider that anyone using pg_upgrade is
> probably in a hurry to get the upgrade done and the database back
> on-line).  It seems like this is an opportunity to get rid of one of
> those unnecessary failure cases.

FYI, the original design goal of pg_upgrade was to be do reliable
upgrades and fail at the hint of any inconsistency.  Seems it is time to
adjust its goals.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +