Re: pg_upgrade failing from 9.3 to 9.4 because "template0" already exists - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: pg_upgrade failing from 9.3 to 9.4 because "template0" already exists
Date
Msg-id 20150516041029.GA16102@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade failing from 9.3 to 9.4 because "template0" already exists  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-general
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:51:15AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:49:43AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar  9, 2015 at 12:43:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar  6, 2015 at 06:10:15PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > > The first is required or anyone who has done that will get the funny
> > > > > error that started this thread and things won't work anyway, but I
> > > > > believe the latter is also necessary to patch and back-patch as it could
> > > > > lead to data loss.  It's not a high potential as, hopefully, people will
> > > > > check first, but I can imagine a hosting provider or environments where
> > > > > there are lots of independent clusters not catching this issue in their
> > > > > testing, only to discover someone set their database to 'datallowconn =
> > > > > false' for whatever reason and now that database is gone...
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. I will work on a patch for this.
> > >
> > > Attached is a patch that implements this, and it should be backpatch to
> > > all versions.
> >
> > Excellent and agreed.  Just looked through the patch and didn't do a
> > full review, but it looks good to me.
>
> OK, thanks.  I will apply it all branches later today as it is a data
> loss bug.

Patch applied back through 9.0.  Thanks for the report and analysis.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + Everyone has their own god. +


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: Index on integer or on string field
Next
From: "FarjadFarid\(ChkNet\)"
Date:
Subject: Re: Index on integer or on string field