> On 1 Oct 2024, at 00:20, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: >>> On 30 Sep 2024, at 16:55, Tom Lane <t...@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
