Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I don't think this vacuumdb feature should deal with any
>> version-conversion issues. So it sounds like the thing to do is keep the
>> wrapper script, which will give us a place to put any such special actions
>> without having to kluge up vacuumdb's behavior. That'll avoid breaking
>> scripts that users might've built for using pg_upgrade, too.
> I guess I don't see what's wrong with kludging up vacuumdb. It's not
> like that's a very complicated utility; what will be hurt by a few
> more options?
Carrying kluges forever, and exposing them to users' view. The particular
example Peter gave was only relevant to upgrades from 8.4; why would we be
putting code into vacuumdb now for that, and expecting to support it
forevermore? What if the code to fix up something doesn't even *work*
unless we're updating from version M.N? Putting such code into vacuumdb
means you have to make it bulletproof against other invocation
circumstances, and document what it does (since it's a user-visible
switch), and just in general greatly increases the development overhead.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
