Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 30 Sep 2024, at 16:55, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> TBH I'm not finding anything very much wrong with the current
>> behavior... this has to be a rare situation, do we need to add
>> debatable behavior to make it easier?
> One argument would be to make the checks consistent, pg_upgrade generally
> tries
> to report all the offending entries to help the user when fixing the source
> database. Not sure if it's a strong enough argument for carrying code which
> really shouldn't see much use though.
OK, but the consistency argument would be to just report and fail.
I don't think there's a precedent in other pg_upgrade checks for
trying to fix problems automatically.
regards, tom lane
