Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Oct 28, 2011 5:22 AM, "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Bruce Momjian <br...@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 <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
