Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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>

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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-10-28 14:11:09
Subject: Re: Unreproducible bug in snapshot import code
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-10-28 14:07:51
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group