| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped |
| Date: | 2011-10-28 14:09:29 |
| Message-ID: | 201110281409.p9SE9TS03771@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> action. I understand that failing is probably less code, but IMHO one
> of the biggest problems with pg_upgrade is that it's too fragile:
> there are too many seemingly innocent things that can make it croak
> (which isn't good, when you consider that anyone using pg_upgrade is
> probably in a hurry to get the upgrade done and the database back
> on-line). It seems like this is an opportunity to get rid of one of
> those unnecessary failure cases.
FYI, the original design goal of pg_upgrade was to be do reliable
upgrades and fail at the hint of any inconsistency. Seems it is time to
adjust its goals.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-10-28 14:11:09 | Re: Unreproducible bug in snapshot import code |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-10-28 14:07:51 | Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped |