Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12618.1220876934@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>) |
Ответы |
Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM> writes: > Another idea is to create backward compatible AM and put them into separate > library. If these AM will work also with old page structure then there should > not be reason for reindexing or index page conversion after upgrade. I don't think that'd be real workable. It would require duplicating all the entries for that AM in pg_opfamily, pg_amop, etc. Which we could do for the built-in entries, I suppose, but what happens to user-defined operator classes? At least for the index changes proposed so far for 8.4, it seems to me that the best solution is to mark affected indexes as not "indisvalid" and require a post-conversion REINDEX to fix 'em. Obviously a better solution would be nice later, but we have to avoid putting huge amounts of work into noncritical problems, else the whole feature is just not going to get finished. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: