Re: pg_upgrade from 9.4 to 10.4

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 04:56:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 01:55:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > The comment at the top of src/port/system.c explains why we need those
> > > quotes. Spaces was not the issue.
> >
> > So, while starting to prepare the release notes, I looked at this patch
> > again and I'm still wondering why it's designed this way. AFAICS,
> > the current state of affairs is:
> >
> > 1. previous server was shut down nicely: all good.
> > 2. previous server was shut down with "-m immediate": we complain and die.
> > 3. previous server was shut down with "kill -9": we clean up and press on.
> >
> > I am not really sure why case 2 deserves a wrist slap and making the user
> > clean it up manually when we're willing to clean up automatically in
> > case 3. If we're going to treat them differently, that's backwards.
> >
> > Right now is probably not a good time to fix this, but it seems like
> > something that could be improved. I'd be kind of inclined to remove
> > the pidfile checking business altogether in favor of inspecting the
> > state in pg_control; or at least do them both in the same place with
> > the same recovery attempt if we don't like what we see.
>
> Yes, I realize this was inconsistent. It was done this way purely based
> on how easy it would be to check each item in each place. I am fine
> with removing the #3 cleanup so we are consistent. We can also add docs
> to say it should be a "clean" shutdown.

How do you want me to handle this, considering it has to be backpatched?

--
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 +