Top posting, sorry for that.
Le 10 juin 2010 à 03:40, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I think users would rather have the restore fail, and know right
>>>> they have an issue, than to do the upgrade, and find out later
>>>> that some
>>>> of their application queries fail and they need to run around
>>>> them. ?(FYI, pg_upgrade would use the new pg_dump and would not
>>>> In a way, the fact that the restore fails can be seen as a
>>>> feature ---
>>>> they get the error before the go live on 8.4. ?(Yeah, I am
>>> Eeh, I've had this happen to me on earlier releases, and it didn't
>>> feel like a feature to me. YMMV, of course.
>> Would you have preferred later application failure?
> YES! It's a heck of a lot easier to fix the application than it is to
> doctor the dump output with vi.
But of course you don't ever do that. What you do once the restore
failed on you is fix the schema and the application before to upgrade.
At least you have a chance to upgrade to a working setup.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Robert Walker||Date: 2010-06-11 18:49:03|
|Subject: BUG #5500: SPI_execute_plan_with_paramlist SPI_ERROR_TRANSACTION with savepoint|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2010-06-11 16:51:12|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5499: SQL syntax bug|