| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Krennwallner <tk(at)postsubmeta(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases |
| Date: | 2024-09-30 21:29:35 |
| Message-ID: | CE534F60-5CDD-489B-BBD1-0A20F1B783BF@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 30 Sep 2024, at 16:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> TBH I'm not finding anything very much wrong with the current
> behavior... this has to be a rare situation, do we need to add
> debatable behavior to make it easier?
One argument would be to make the checks consistent, pg_upgrade generally tries
to report all the offending entries to help the user when fixing the source
database. Not sure if it's a strong enough argument for carrying code which
really shouldn't see much use though.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | v.popolitov | 2024-09-30 21:30:40 | Re: Increase of maintenance_work_mem limit in 64-bit Windows |
| Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2024-09-30 21:21:30 | Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster |