From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Hilbert, Sebastian" <Sebastian(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade ?deficiency |
Date: | 2013-11-30 23:21:08 |
Message-ID: | 1385853668.15673.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
>> I have fixed pg_upgrade in git-head with the attached patch,
>> which prepends default_transaction_read_only=false to PGOPTIONS.
>
> What is the point of this, given that Kevin fixed pg_dumpall?
> Don't those fixes take care of the issue?
>
> If your argument is that you want pg_upgrade to work even if the
> user already turned on default_transaction_read_only in the *new*
> cluster, I would humbly disagree with that goal, for pretty much
> the same reasons I didn't want pg_dump overriding it.
If there were databases or users with default_transaction_read_only
set in the old cluster, the pg_dumpall run will cause that property
to be set in the new cluster, so what you are saying seems to be
that a cluster can't be upgraded to a new major release if any
database within it has that set. My personal feeling is that it
would be good if that were not a barrier to using pg_upgrade; but
it would be OK as long as running it with the --check option
*tells* you that the cluster can't be upgraded without turning that
property off for all databases, and that the user under which it
runs can't have the property set.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2013-11-30 23:27:35 | Re: Full Stored Procedure Support, any time soon ? |
Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2013-11-30 22:47:06 | Re: Full Stored Procedure Support, any time soon ? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-11-30 23:34:50 | Re: review - pg_stat_statements |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-11-30 23:11:20 | Re: Extension Templates S03E11 |