| From: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix pg_upgrade to preserve datdba |
| Date: | 2021-03-21 17:15:54 |
| Message-ID: | 2284b71d-af55-2625-f8c2-cedf1f1a70ca@wi3ck.info |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/21/21 12:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> writes:
>> On 3/20/21 12:39 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>> On the way pg_upgrade also mangles the pg_database.datdba
>>> (all databases are owned by postgres after an upgrade; will submit a
>>> separate patch for that as I consider that a bug by itself).
>
>> Patch attached.
>
> Hmm, doesn't this lose all *other* database-level properties?
>
> I think maybe what we have here is a bug in pg_restore, its
> --create switch ought to be trying to update the database's
> ownership.
Possibly. I didn't look into that route.
Regards, Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Principle Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-03-21 17:20:21 | Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-21 16:57:12 | Re: Fix pg_upgrade to preserve datdba (was: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects) |