On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:37:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:48 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > I am find to add it if it is minor, but I want to see the calculus of > > its value vs complexity, which I have not seen spelled out. > > I don't think it's going to be all that complicated, but we're going > to have to wait until we have something closer to a final patch before > we can really evaluate that. I am honestly a little puzzled about why > you think complexity is such a big issue for this patch in particular. > I feel we do probably several hundred things every release cycle that > are more complicated than this, so it doesn't seem like this is > particularly extraordinary or needs a lot of extra scrutiny. I do > think there is some risk that there are messy cases we can't handle > cleanly, but if that becomes an issue then I'll abandon the effort > until a solution can be found. I'm not trying to relentlessly drive > something through that is a bad idea on principle. > > I agree with all Stephen's comments, too.
I just don't want to add requirements/complexity to pg_upgrade without clearly stated reasons because future database changes will need to honor this new preservation behavior. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
