| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_migrator and handling dropped columns |
| Date: | 2009-02-13 08:43:56 |
| Message-ID: | 499532CC.5020702@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>> Is this acceptable to everyone? We could name the option
>> -u/--upgrade-compatible.
>
> If the switch is specifically for pg_upgrade support (enabling this as
> well as any other hacks we find necessary), which seems like a good
> idea, then don't chew up a short option letter for it. There should be
> a long form only.
Note that pg_dump's output is already upgrade compatible. That's what
pg_dump is often used for after all. I believe what we are after here
is something like "in-place upgrade compatible" or "upgrade binary
compatible".
> And probably not even list it in the user documentation.
I think we should still list it somewhere and say it is for use by
in-place upgrade utilities. It will only confuse people if it is not
documented at all.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-02-13 08:50:56 | Re: pg_restore --multi-thread |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-02-13 08:43:40 | Re: WIP: hooking parser |