From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Hilbert, Sebastian" <Sebastian(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
Date: | 2013-11-26 23:25:44 |
Message-ID: | 1385508344.12244.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> How are we handling breakage of pg_dump, not pg_dumpall?
That was discussed. Do you have something to add?
> doc patch?
Instead of the fix you mean, or with it? I don't see what we would
change in the docs for the fix; the alternative might be to
document that pg_dumpall output will fail to restore if any
database (or the restoring user) has this property set.
> pg_upgrade probably needs a doc patch too, or a reset like
> pg_dumpall. pg_upgrade is more like pg_dumpall, so a code patch
> seems most logical, again, assuming we decide that pg_dumpall is
> the right place for this reset of default_transaction_read_only.
I don't have much opinion on what the pg_upgrade aspect except,
like I said, that if it is going to fail, it should fail in the
check. Passing the check but failing during the upgrade would not
be very user-friendly. Again, I'm not sure that a doc patch is
needed to say that pg_upgrade works even when this option is set.
Why would anyone assume otherwise? Why would we list this property
and not others?
I'm willing to do the pg_dumpall patch but would rather not take on
pg_upgrade. If you would rather I leave the whole thing to you,
that's OK, too.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-27 00:19:42 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-11-26 21:48:33 | Re: Any advantage of using SSL with a certificate of authority? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-26 23:50:28 | Platform-dependent(?) failure in timeout handling |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-26 23:21:30 | Re: Incomplete freezing when truncating a relation during vacuum |