Robert Haas wrote: > action. I understand that failing is probably less code, but IMHO one > of the biggest problems with pg_upgrade is that it's too fragile: > there are too many seemingly innocent things that can make it croak > (which isn't good, when you consider that anyone using pg_upgrade is > probably in a hurry to get the upgrade done and the database back > on-line). It seems like this is an opportunity to get rid of one of > those unnecessary failure cases.
FYI, the original design goal of pg_upgrade was to be do reliable upgrades and fail at the hint of any inconsistency. Seems it is time to adjust its goals. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
