Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce)
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20210826154452.GE22637@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:35:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:24 AM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:00:47AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > Anyone see a flaw in that analysis? > > > > I am still waiting to hear the purpose of this preservation. As long as > > you don't apply the patch, I guess I will just stop asking. > > You make it sound like I didn't answer that question the last time you > asked it, but I did.[1] I went back to the previous thread and found > that, in fact, there's at least one email *from you* appearing to > endorse that concept for reasons unrelated to TDE[2] and another where > you appear to agree that it would be useful for TDE to do it.[3] > Stephen Frost also wrote up his discussion during the Unconference and > some of his reasons for liking the idea.[4] > > If you've changed your mind about this being a good idea, or if you no > longer think it's useful without TDE, that's fine. Everyone is > entitled to change their opinion. But then please say that straight > out. It baffles me why you're now acting as if it hasn't been > discussed when it clearly has been, and both you and I were > participants in that discussion. > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+Tgmob7msyh3VRaY87USr22UakvvSyy4zBaQw2AO2CfoUD3rA@mail.gmail.com > [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210601140949.GC22012@momjian.us > [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210527210023.GJ5646@momjian.us > [4] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210531201652.GY20766@tamriel.snowman.net Yes, it would help incremental backup of pgBackRest, as reported by the developers. However, I have seen no discussion if this is useful enough reason to add the complexity to preserve this. The TODO list shows "Desirability" as the first item to be discussed, so I expected that to be discussed first. Also, with TDE not progressing (and my approach not even needing this), I have not seen a full discussion if this item is desirable based on its complexity. What I did see is this patch appear with no context of why it is useful given our current plans, except for pgBackRest, which I think I mentioned. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: