Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8353.1330551267@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2
Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> The utility would run in the old cluster before upgrading, so the the flag >> would have to be present in the old version. pg_upgrade would check that the >> flag is set, refusing to upgrade if it isn't, with an error like "please run >> pre-upgrade utility first". > I find that a pretty unappealing design; it seems to me it'd be much > easier to make the new cluster cope with everything. Easier for who? I don't care for the idea of code that has to cope with two page formats, or before long N page formats, because if we don't have some mechanism like this then we will never be able to decide that an old data format is safely dead. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: