Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped
Date: 2011-10-28 14:16:51
Message-ID: 201110281416.p9SEGpg04853@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> We definitely don't want it to do anything that could compromise data
> integrity. But in this case there seems no risk of that, so it seems
> we can have our cake and eat it, too.

Agreed. I was extra cautious.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-10-28 14:18:08 Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-10-28 14:16:32 Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped