Re: pg_upgrade patches applied

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade patches applied
Date: 2011-01-05 16:08:29
Message-ID: 201101051608.p05G8Tb28590@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> That isn't going to work. At least not unless you start trying to force
> >> roles to have the same OIDs in the new installation.
>
> > If so I can use the CREATE ROLE ... SYSID clause when doing a binary
> > upgrade.
>
> Oh, I had forgotten we still had that wart in the grammar.
> It doesn't actually work:
>
> else if (strcmp(defel->defname, "sysid") == 0)
> {
> ereport(NOTICE,
> (errmsg("SYSID can no longer be specified")));
> }
>
> Not sure if it's better to try to make that work again than to add
> another hack in pg_upgrade_support. On the whole that's a keyword
> I'd rather see us drop someday soon.

OK, let me work on adding it to pg_upgrade_support. Glad you saw this.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2011-01-05 16:19:02 Re: Support for negative index values in array fetching
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-01-05 16:06:02 Re: pg_upgrade patches applied