On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-04-23 15:46:20 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Well, we've made backward-incompatible changes before. Not to this >> specific thing, but in general. I don't think there's anything >> preventing us from doing so here, except that we don't want to annoy >> too many users. > > I think the number of users that have done this, and haven't yet > (knowing or unknowningly) been bitten by it is pretty low. In that > scenario it seems much better to break compatibility given that it's > pretty easy to fix during restore (just precreate the tablespace). It's > not something you have to retest a whole application for. > > If you want to avoid that one error you can still do pg_dumpall > --globals, edit and run that script, and only then restore the the > actual databases.
But pg_upgrade automates all that, so you can't use pg_upgrade in that case. If we add a GUC as I suggested, you can still use pg_upgrade. -- 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