From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Thomas Krennwallner <tk@postsubmeta.net>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade check for invalid databases
In-reply-to: <Zvqx2Xs4RUdByT8S@nathan>
References: <f9315bf0-e03e-4490-9f0d-5b6f7a6d9908@postsubmeta.net> <Zvqx2Xs4RUdByT8S@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:12:41 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1455755.1727708139.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:55:39 -0400
Message-ID: <1455756.1727708139@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1455756.1727708139%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Should we have pg_upgrade skip invalid databases?  If the only valid action
> is to drop them, IMHO it seems unnecessary to require users to manually
> drop them before retrying pg_upgrade.

I was thinking the same.  But I wonder if there is any chance of
losing data that could be recoverable.  It feels like this should
not be a default behavior.

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?

			regards, tom lane