Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Arthur Zakirov <zaartur(at)gmail(dot)com>, Grigory Smolkin <g(dot)smolkin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL
Date: 2020-06-12 07:08:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 07:58:43PM +0300, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
> I would be glad to add some test, but it seems to me that the infrastructure
> changes for cross-version pg_upgrade test is much more complicated task than
> this modest bugfix.  Besides, I've read the discussion and it seems that
> Michael
> is not going to continue this work.

The main issue I recall from this patch series was the lack of
enthusiasm because it would break potential users running major
upgrade tests based on At the same time, if you don't break
the wheel..

> Attached v10 patch contains more fix for uninitialized variable.

Thanks. Sorry for the time it takes. I'd like to get into this issue
but I have not been able to dive into it seriously yet.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-06-12 07:16:04 Re: Make more use of RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE()
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2020-06-12 07:03:04 Re: [Patch] pg_rewind: options to use restore_command from recovery.conf or command line