From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
Date: | 2012-08-08 22:42:27 |
Message-ID: | 15402.1344465747@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2012-08-08 22:50:22 | Re: [PATCH] Make "psql -1 < file.sql" work as with "-f" |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2012-08-08 21:58:33 | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |