| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: file cloning in pg_upgrade and CREATE DATABASE |
| Date: | 2018-10-03 01:35:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20181003013502.gvb5rkopfxtqk2yh@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Oct-03, Michael Paquier wrote:
> There could be an argument for having an automatic more within this
> scheme, still I am not really a fan of this. When somebody integrates
> pg_upgrade within an upgrade framework, they would likely test if
> cloning actually works, bumping immediately on a failure, no? I'd like
> to think that copy should be the default, cloning being available as an
> option. Cloning is not supported on many filesystems anyway..
I'm not clear what interface are you proposing. Maybe they would just
use the clone-or-fail mode, and note whether it fails? If that's not
it, please explain.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-03 01:44:09 | Re: file cloning in pg_upgrade and CREATE DATABASE |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-10-03 01:24:17 | Relax transactional restrictions on ALTER ENUM ... ADD TYPE (redux) |