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 <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
