Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency

Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I am not a fan of backpatching any of this.

> Are you saying that you find current behavior acceptable in back
> branches?

I'm inclined to agree with Kevin that this behavior is wrong and
should be fixed (and back-patched), so far as pg_dumpall is concerned.
pg_dumpall's charter is to be able to recreate a database cluster's
contents in a virgin installation, but it's failing to honor that
contract if the cluster has any ALTER DATABASE SET default_read_only
settings.  Similarly, I think it's reasonable to try to make pg_upgrade
cope with the case.

I also agree with *not* changing pg_dump, since it is not the charter
of pg_dump to recreate a whole cluster, and the objection about possibly
restoring into a database that was meant to be protected by this setting
seems to have some force.
        regards, tom lane