Re: -Wformat-zero-length

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: -Wformat-zero-length
Date: 2012-08-09 13:20:23
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYwS1e39khowehzgv8P4f+DKARWabP8C4FfSeF9hkV7MA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> The point I think Robert was trying to make is that we need to cut down
>> not only the complexity of running pg_upgrade, but the number of failure
>> modes. At least that's how I'd define improvement here.
>
> Agreed. Even with these changes, I still see a lot of complexity.

I agree. That's why I said it needs some serious engineering time to
file down the rough edges, plural, not that it needs this fix in
particular. This would help to make things less error-prone, but it's
far from the only thing that is needed. As to what exactly is needed,
well that's up for discussion.

One of the big failure modes for pg_upgrade is... pg_dump's dump fails
to restore. That bothers me quite a bit because there are actually a
lot more people who rely on pg_dump than there are people who rely on
pg_upgrade, and it turns out there are all of these edge cases that
pg_dump doesn't actually handle all that well. Sure, you can edit the
dump by hand (if you're not using pg_upgrade) but that sucks.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2012-08-09 14:00:51 Re: -Wformat-zero-length
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2012-08-09 13:10:40 Re: [WIP] Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation