Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped
Date: 2011-10-28 19:54:16
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > > OK, then the simplest fix, once you modify pg_dumpall, would be to
>> > > modify pg_upgrade to remove reference to the postgres database in the
>> > > new cluster if it doesn't exist in the old one. ?That would allow
>> > > pg_upgrade to maintain a 1-1 matching of databases in the old and new
>> > > cluster --- it allows the change to be locallized without affecting much
>> > > code.
>> >
>> > That sounds just fine.  +1.
>> FYI, I don't want to modify pg_dumpall myself because I didn't want to
>> have pg_upgrade forcing a pg_dumpall change that applies to
>> non-binary-upgrade dumps.  pg_dumpall is too important.  I am fine if
>> someone else does it, though.  :-)
> If you want crazy, you could suppress the "\connect postgres" line only
> in --binary-upgrade dumps, but that seems to error-prone because then
> only --binary-upgrade dumps are exercising that behavior.

Also, then it would still be doing something silly in the non
--binary-upgrade case.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-10-28 19:54:26
Subject: Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-28 19:53:27
Subject: Re: So, is COUNT(*) fast now?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group