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

Re: Rename a database that has connections

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rename a database that has connections
Date: 2011-11-22 03:38:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I've been helping out several customers recently who all seem to be 
> wrestling with the same issue: wanting to update/refresh non-production 
> databases from the latest corresponding prod version. Typically they 
> have (fairly complex) scripts that at some point attempt to restore a 
> dump into new database and then rename the to-be-retired db out of the 
> way and rename the newly restored one to take over.
> In many cases such scripts would be simplified if a database could be 
> renamed without requiring its connections terminated. I've been asked 
> several times if this could be added... so I've caved in a done a patch 
> that allows this.
> The default behavior is unchanged - it is required to specify an 
> additional trailing FORCE keyword to elicit the more brutal behavior. 
> Note that existing connections to the renamed database are unaffected, 
> but obviously SELECT current_database() returns the new name (in the 
> next transaction).

Uh, it isn't save to copy a database when someone else is connected. 
How does this address that issue?

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-11-22 03:41:27
Subject: Re: Rename a database that has connections
Previous:From: Noah MischDate: 2011-11-22 03:17:45
Subject: Re: strange nbtree corruption report

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