From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges |
Date: | 2021-04-28 20:47:51 |
Message-ID: | 2940601.1619642871@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 28 Apr 2021, at 17:09, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> + pg_fatal("Your installation contains system-defined composite type(s) in user tables.\n"
>> + "These type OIDs are not stable across PostgreSQL versions,\n"
>> + "so this cluster cannot currently be upgraded. You can\n"
>> + "remove the problem tables and restart the upgrade.\n"
>> + "A list of the problem columns is in the file:\n"
> Would it be helpful to inform the user that they can alter/drop just the
> problematic columns as a potentially less scary alternative to dropping the
> entire table?
This wording is copied-and-pasted from the other similar tests. I agree
that it's advocating a solution that might be overkill, but if we change
it we should also change the existing messages. I don't mind doing
that in HEAD; less sure about the back branches, as (I think) these
are translatable strings.
Thoughts?
>> - * The type of interest might be wrapped in a domain, array,
>> + * The types of interest might be wrapped in a domain, array,
> Shouldn't this be "type(s)” as in the other changes here?
Fair enough.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-04-28 20:58:01 | Re: pg_upgrade fails to detect unsupported arrays and ranges |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-28 20:41:25 | Re: Replication slot stats misgivings |