On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> The point I think Robert was trying to make is that we need to cut down
>> not only the complexity of running pg_upgrade, but the number of failure
>> modes. At least that's how I'd define improvement here.
>
> Agreed. Even with these changes, I still see a lot of complexity.
I agree. That's why I said it needs some serious engineering time to
file down the rough edges, plural, not that it needs this fix in
particular. This would help to make things less error-prone, but it's
far from the only thing that is needed. As to what exactly is needed,
well that's up for discussion.
One of the big failure modes for pg_upgrade is... pg_dump's dump fails
to restore. That bothers me quite a bit because there are actually a
lot more people who rely on pg_dump than there are people who rely on
pg_upgrade, and it turns out there are all of these edge cases that
pg_dump doesn't actually handle all that well. Sure, you can edit the
dump by hand (if you're not using pg_upgrade) but that sucks.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company