Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201110281409.p9SE9TS03771@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote: > action. I understand that failing is probably less code, but IMHO one > of the biggest problems with pg_upgrade is that it's too fragile: > there are too many seemingly innocent things that can make it croak > (which isn't good, when you consider that anyone using pg_upgrade is > probably in a hurry to get the upgrade done and the database back > on-line). It seems like this is an opportunity to get rid of one of > those unnecessary failure cases. FYI, the original design goal of pg_upgrade was to be do reliable upgrades and fail at the hint of any inconsistency. Seems it is time to adjust its goals. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: