Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> On Sun, Jun  4, 2017 at 01:20:12PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I think it'd be better to be exhaustive about the report, i.e. report
>> all problems in all databases, if possible.  Doing repeated pg_upgrade
>> attempts until you've nailed all the problems is boring ...

> Well, I think there are three open items:

> *  should we print all the database names involved


> *  should we print all the pg_proc.pronames that are involved, not just
> the unique library names
> *  should we output a query helping people find the pg_proc entries

> I think there are many cases where DROP EXTENSION XXX fixes the problem,

Yes.  I think in most cases nowadays there's a one-for-one correlation
between extensions and libraries; drilling down to the level of individual
functions would just be confusing clutter.  I think if you just print
a report saying "these libraries are referenced in these databases",
that would be sufficiently usable in most cases.

You could think about printing a script full of DROP EXTENSION commands,
but aside from the sheer difficulty of doing that, it doesn't seem all
that helpful.  Simply dropping every extension is usually *not* the
right answer, and it could easily lead to data loss if done blindly.
Usually people are going to need to stop and think anyway.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to