On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> The point I think Robert was trying to make is that we need to cut down >> not only the complexity of running pg_upgrade, but the number of failure >> modes. At least that's how I'd define improvement here. > > Agreed. Even with these changes, I still see a lot of complexity.
I agree. That's why I said it needs some serious engineering time to file down the rough edges, plural, not that it needs this fix in particular. This would help to make things less error-prone, but it's far from the only thing that is needed. As to what exactly is needed, well that's up for discussion. One of the big failure modes for pg_upgrade is... pg_dump's dump fails to restore. That bothers me quite a bit because there are actually a lot more people who rely on pg_dump than there are people who rely on pg_upgrade, and it turns out there are all of these edge cases that pg_dump doesn't actually handle all that well. Sure, you can edit the dump by hand (if you're not using pg_upgrade) but that sucks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
