Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2011 5:22 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > Stephen Frost wrote:
> > >> Yes, they would have removed it because they didn't want it. As I
> > >> recall, part of the agreement to create an extra database by default
> was
> > >> that it could be removed if users didn't want it. Turning around and
> > >> then saying "but things won't work if it's not there" isn't exactly
> > >> supporting users who decide to remove it.
> >
> > > Well, you would have to remove it _after_ you did the pg_upgrade.
> >
> > As far as the *target* cluster is concerned, I have no sympathy for
> > someone who messes with its contents before running pg_upgrade.
> > That's an RTFM matter: you're supposed to upgrade into a virgin
> > just-initdb'd cluster.
> >
> > However, it would be nice if pg_upgrade supported transferring from a
> > *source* cluster that didn't have the postgres DB.
> >
> > What about creating a new, single-purpose database in the source
> > cluster and then removing it again after we're done?
>
> How about naming this newly created database "postgres"? That would make the
> code simple enough - always use the postgres database, just drop it at the
> end if it didn't exist in the source cluster.
Yes, that would work, but see my summarization email on this. Using
template1 is not a problem for pg_upgrade, it is the modifications to
pg_dumpall that are an issue.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +