Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> > It turns out there was only one place that expected a 1-1 mapping of > >> >> > old > >> >> > and new databases (file transfer), so I just modified that code to > >> >> > allow > >> >> > skipping a database in the new cluster that didn't exist in the old > >> >> > cluster. > >> >> > >> >> Urp. ?But that means that if someone has any data in that database, > >> >> pg_upgrade will basically eat it. ?That does not seem like a step > >> >> forward. > >> > > >> > Please clarify? ?We already check that all the new cluster databases are > >> > empty, so we are effectively skipping the transfering of files into > >> > empty new cluster databases. ?It processes all old cluster databases and > >> > forces a new cluster match --- it is only empty new cluster database > >> > that are being skipped. > >> > >> Aren't you saying that if a postgres database exists in the old > >> database (and potentially contains data) but is missing in the new > >> database, we'll just fail to migrate it? > > > > No, the reverse. ?If the 'postgres' database exists in the new cluster, > > but not in the old, we allow it to upgrade (we skip over the 'postgres' > > database in the new cluster use the loop in the patch). > > Oh, OK. That seems fine - in fact, that seems perfect. > > > Unless I am missing something. ?Did you see something odd in the patch > > or in my wording? > > Your wording confused me, but on further review I think I'm just > easily confused.
The concept is pretty confusing and I had to think a while before I came up with this approach. -- 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
