Top posting, sorry for that.
--=20=20
dim
Le 10 juin 2010 =C3=A0 03:40, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> a =C3=A9c=
rit :
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>=20=20
> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I think users would rather have the restore fail, and know right=20=20
>>>> away
>>>> they have an issue, than to do the upgrade, and find out later=20=20
>>>> that some
>>>> of their application queries fail and they need to run around=20=20
>>>> fixing
>>>> them. ?(FYI, pg_upgrade would use the new pg_dump and would not=20=20
>>>> fail.)
>>>>
>>>> In a way, the fact that the restore fails can be seen as a=20=20
>>>> feature ---
>>>> they get the error before the go live on 8.4. ?(Yeah, I am=20=20
>>>> serious.)
+1
>>> Eeh, I've had this happen to me on earlier releases, and it didn't
>>> feel like a feature to me. YMMV, of course.
>>
>> Would you have preferred later application failure?
>
> YES! It's a heck of a lot easier to fix the application than it is to
> doctor the dump output with vi.
But of course you don't ever do that. What you do once the restore=20=20
failed on you is fix the schema and the application before to upgrade.
At least you have a chance to upgrade to a working setup.
>