Re: pg_upgade vs config

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgade vs config
Date: 2016-10-03 02:00:12
Message-ID: 631a86f8-a6fe-8470-20f9-decb9216bdab@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/02/2016 07:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> It occurs to me that a back-patchable workaround for this would be to
>> make get_loadable_libraries sort the library names in order by length
>> (and I guess we might as well sort same-length names alphabetically).
>> This would for example guarantee that hstore_plpython is probed after
>> both hstore and plpython. Admittedly, this is a kluge of the first
>> water. But I see no prospect of back-patching any real fix, and it
>> would definitely be better if pg_upgrade didn't fail on these modules.
> I've tested the attached and verified that it allows pg_upgrade'ing
> of the hstore_plpython regression DB --- or, if I reverse the sort
> order, that it reproducibly fails. I propose back-patching this
> at least as far as 9.5, where the transform modules came in. It might
> be a good idea to go all the way back, just so that the behavior is
> predictable.
>
>

Yeah, it's a really ugly kluge, but I don't have a better idea.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-10-03 02:00:44 Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-10-03 01:59:20 Re: Optimization for lazy_scan_heap