From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE lock downgrades have broken pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2016-05-11 00:51:43 |
Message-ID: | 20160511005143.GG22756@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think possibly the easiest fix for this is to have pg_upgrade,
> instead of RESETting a nonexistent option, RESET something that's
> still considered to require AccessExclusiveLock. "user_catalog_table"
> would work, looks like; though I'd want to annotate its entry in
> reloptions.c to warn people away from downgrading its lock level.
>
> More generally, though, I wonder how we can have some test coverage
> on such cases going forward. Is the patch below too ugly to commit
> permanently, and if so, what other idea can you suggest?
FYI, I only test _supported_ version combinations for pg_upgrade, i.e. I
don't test pg_upgrade _from_ unsupported versions, though I can see why
maybe I should.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-11 00:52:13 | Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-11 00:50:16 | Re: asynchronous and vectorized execution |