| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Krennwallner <tk(at)postsubmeta(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases |
| Date: | 2024-09-30 22:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1638096.1727734841@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> On 30 Sep 2024, at 16:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> TBH I'm not finding anything very much wrong with the current
>> behavior... this has to be a rare situation, do we need to add
>> debatable behavior to make it easier?
> One argument would be to make the checks consistent, pg_upgrade generally tries
> to report all the offending entries to help the user when fixing the source
> database. Not sure if it's a strong enough argument for carrying code which
> really shouldn't see much use though.
OK, but the consistency argument would be to just report and fail.
I don't think there's a precedent in other pg_upgrade checks for
trying to fix problems automatically.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Banck | 2024-09-30 22:43:49 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-09-30 22:05:56 | Re: pg_verifybackup: TAR format backup verification |