Hi, On 2018-06-19 11:51:16 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > My initial thought was that as a fallback we should disable pg_upgrade on > databases containing such values, and document the limitation in the docs > and the release notes. The workaround would be to force a table rewrite > which would clear them if necessary.
I personally would say that that's not acceptable. People will start using fast defaults - and you can't even do anything against it! - and suddenly pg_upgrade won't work. But they will only notice that years later, after collecting terrabytes of data in such tables. If we can't fix it properly, then imo we should revert / neuter the feature. > Have we ever recommended use of pg_upgrade for some manual catalog fix after > release? I don't recall doing so. Certainly it hasn't been common. No, but why does it matter? Are you arguing we can delay pg_dump support for fast defaults to v12? Greetings, Andres Freund
