| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
| Date: | 2012-08-08 21:15:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20120808211538.GA6070@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 04:23:04PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Yes, the list of rough edges is the 14-steps you have to perform to run
> > pg_upgrade, as documented in the pg_upgrade manual page:
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/pgupgrade.html
> >
> > The unknown is how to reduce the number of steps in a way the community
> > would find acceptable.
>
> I think this is one good idea:
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/29806.1340655654@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> The number of steps is an issue, but the likelihood of the actual
> pg_upgrade run failing or doing the wrong thing is also something we
> need to work on.
If we currently require 14 steps to use pg_upgrade, how would that
reduce this number? What failures does it fix?
--
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 | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-08-08 21:29:49 | Re: -Wformat-zero-length |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-08-08 20:55:43 | Re: [PATCH] Make "psql -1 < file.sql" work as with "-f" |