On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 12:37:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:48 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > I am find to add it if it is minor, but I want to see the calculus of
> > its value vs complexity, which I have not seen spelled out.
>
> I don't think it's going to be all that complicated, but we're going
> to have to wait until we have something closer to a final patch before
> we can really evaluate that. I am honestly a little puzzled about why
> you think complexity is such a big issue for this patch in particular.
> I feel we do probably several hundred things every release cycle that
> are more complicated than this, so it doesn't seem like this is
> particularly extraordinary or needs a lot of extra scrutiny. I do
> think there is some risk that there are messy cases we can't handle
> cleanly, but if that becomes an issue then I'll abandon the effort
> until a solution can be found. I'm not trying to relentlessly drive
> something through that is a bad idea on principle.
>
> I agree with all Stephen's comments, too.
I just don't want to add requirements/complexity to pg_upgrade without
clearly stated reasons because future database changes will need to
honor this new preservation behavior.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
