Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> We definitely don't want it to do anything that could compromise data
> integrity.  But in this case there seems no risk of that, so it seems
> we can have our cake and eat it, too.

Agreed.  I was extra cautious.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +