From: | "Karsten Hilbert" <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Hilbert, Sebastian" <Sebastian(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
Date: | 2013-11-20 15:07:59 |
Message-ID: | trinity-72668c5c-974b-4524-9221-ede1ddb74ee2-1384960079750@3capp-gmx-bs05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 02:36:08PM +0100, Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > > Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> > > > Let me try to rephrase:
> > > >
> > > > Fact: pg_upgrade can NOT properly upgrade clusters which contain
> > > > databases that are set to "default_transaction_read_only on"
> > > >
> > > > Question: Is this intended ?
> > >
> > > I am pretty sure that this is an oversight and hence a bug.
>
> Well, pg_upgrade can't handle every possible configuration.
Agreed. That would be a design decision: "no, pg_upgrade will
not support upgrading some of your databases, for example those
which are set to default_transaction_ready_only=on".
If I don't like that, fine, I can go and use other tools or
else submit a patch and hope for inclusion or apply a workaround.
That's why I tacitly suggested a hint in the docs might
help to become aware of the above limitation.
Of course, I should submit a patch to the docs just as well.
> How do we even restore into such a database?
We read the state, remember the state, change the state,
restore the data, set the initial state. But you knew that,
I assume.
> You marked the database as read-only, and pg_upgrade
> is going to honor that and not modify it.
Oh, I am extremely happy for pg_upgrade to NOT modify
ANY of my databases ! All I am wondering is whether
it is by design decision (and if so, why) that it cannot
transfer some databases from one PG version to another
one. I am more than happy if it doesn't modify the
databases in the process ;-)
> I believe a pg_dumpall restore might fail in the same way.
pg_dumpall works but a full pg_restore/psql from that dump
likely will not. I haven't tested that yet, though, and I
deliberately did not want to raise *that* question just
yet...
> You need to change the default on the old cluster before upgrading.
I know. That wasn't my question though.
> It is overly cumbersome to set the default_transaction_read_only for every
> database connection,
There is no need for that (see above).
> and there are many other settings that might also cause failures.
If so they warrant documentation as well as they become known.
> If it was a silent failure, I would be more concerned.
Absolutely, full agreement.
> What you might be able to do is to set PGOPTIONS to "-c
> default_transaction_read_only=false" and run pg_upgrade.
That is a good idea. It might have occurred to me earlier
had the pg_upgrade limitation been documented ;-)
Thanks for your work on PostgreSQL,
Karsten
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-20 15:13:18 | Re: Debugging extension with gdb? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-20 14:07:40 | Re: pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2013-11-20 15:13:26 | Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-11-20 15:06:04 | Re: Data corruption issues using streaming replication on 9.0.14/9.2.5/9.3.1 |