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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
