From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fast default stuff versus pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2018-06-19 16:05:49 |
Message-ID: | 20180619160549.hmflubigozqlrrka@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-06-19 11:51:16 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> My initial thought was that as a fallback we should disable pg_upgrade on
> databases containing such values, and document the limitation in the docs
> and the release notes. The workaround would be to force a table rewrite
> which would clear them if necessary.
I personally would say that that's not acceptable. People will start
using fast defaults - and you can't even do anything against it! - and
suddenly pg_upgrade won't work. But they will only notice that years
later, after collecting terrabytes of data in such tables.
If we can't fix it properly, then imo we should revert / neuter the
feature.
> Have we ever recommended use of pg_upgrade for some manual catalog fix after
> release? I don't recall doing so. Certainly it hasn't been common.
No, but why does it matter? Are you arguing we can delay pg_dump support
for fast defaults to v12?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-06-19 16:08:41 | Re: Fast default stuff versus pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-06-19 16:03:44 | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |