Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases
Date
Msg-id 1638096.1727734841@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases
List pgsql-hackers
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 30 Sep 2024, at 16:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> TBH I'm not finding anything very much wrong with the current
>> behavior... this has to be a rare situation, do we need to add
>> debatable behavior to make it easier?

> One argument would be to make the checks consistent, pg_upgrade generally tries
> to report all the offending entries to help the user when fixing the source
> database.  Not sure if it's a strong enough argument for carrying code which
> really shouldn't see much use though.

OK, but the consistency argument would be to just report and fail.
I don't think there's a precedent in other pg_upgrade checks for
trying to fix problems automatically.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_verifybackup: TAR format backup verification
Next
From: Michael Banck
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing the state of data checksums in a running cluster