Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48C4ECB7.9030409@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 (Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek.Kotala@Sun.COM>) |
Ответы |
Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02
Re: Prototype: In-place upgrade v02 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Zdenek Kotala wrote: > Tom Lane napsal(a): >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> In fact, I don't think there's any low-level data format changes yet >>> between 8.3 and 8.4, so this would be a comparatively easy release to >>> implement upgrade-in-place. There's just the catalog changes, but >>> AFAICS nothing that would require scanning through relations. >> >> After a quick scan of the catversion.h changelog (which hopefully covers >> any such changes): we changed sequences incompatibly, we changed hash >> indexes incompatibly (even without the pending patch that would change >> their contents beyond recognition), and Teodor did some stuff to GIN >> indexes that might or might not represent an on-disk format change, >> you'd have to ask him. We also whacked around the sort order of >> bpchar_pattern_ops btree indexes. > > Hmm, It seems that reindex is only good answer on all these changes. Isn't that exactly what we want to avoid with upgrade-in-place? As long as the conversion can be done page-at-a-time, without consulting other pages, we can do it when the page is read in. I'm not sure what the GIN changes were, but I didn't see any changes to the page layout at a quick glance. The bpchar_pattern_ops change you mentioned must be this one: > A not-immediately-obvious incompatibility is that the sort order within > bpchar_pattern_ops indexes changes --- it had been identical to plain > strcmp, but is now trailing-blank-insensitive. This will impact > in-place upgrades, if those ever happen. The way I read that, bpchar_pattern_ops just became less sensitive. Some values are now considered equal that weren't before, and thus can now be stored in any order. That's not an incompatible change, right? > Sequence should be converted during catalog conversion. Agreed. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: