On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:07:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I think possibly the easiest fix for this is to have pg_upgrade, > instead of RESETting a nonexistent option, RESET something that's > still considered to require AccessExclusiveLock. "user_catalog_table" > would work, looks like; though I'd want to annotate its entry in > reloptions.c to warn people away from downgrading its lock level. > > More generally, though, I wonder how we can have some test coverage > on such cases going forward. Is the patch below too ugly to commit > permanently, and if so, what other idea can you suggest?
FYI, I only test _supported_ version combinations for pg_upgrade, i.e. I don't test pg_upgrade _from_ unsupported versions, though I can see why maybe I should. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
