On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:43:05PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 06:10:15PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Technically, there haven't been any complaints about either pg_dumpall's > > behavior in this regard, or pg_upgrade's, but pg_upgrade's post-upgrade > > scripts would happily remove any databases which were marked as > > 'datallowconn = false' and that scares the daylights out of me. To that > > end, I'd suggest patching (and back-patching) pg_upgrade to check early > > on that: > > > > template0 is set to 'datallowconn = false' > > > > AND > > > > all databases except template0 are set to 'datallowconn = true' > > > > The first is required or anyone who has done that will get the funny > > error that started this thread and things won't work anyway, but I > > believe the latter is also necessary to patch and back-patch as it could > > lead to data loss. It's not a high potential as, hopefully, people will > > check first, but I can imagine a hosting provider or environments where > > there are lots of independent clusters not catching this issue in their > > testing, only to discover someone set their database to 'datallowconn = > > false' for whatever reason and now that database is gone... > > Agreed. I will work on a patch for this. Oh, also, thanks for the analysis on this --- you are spot-on. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
