> On 1 Oct 2024, at 00:20, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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.
Correct, sorry for being unclear. The consistency argument would be to expand
pg_upgrade to report all invalid databases rather than just the first found;
attempting to fix problems would be a new behavior.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
